Continuing to make sure that kids from all power conferences don't even have a chance to compete for the national title if they lose one game, even very early in the season, is not a positive.
If we expand to 8 teams, then the system will be unfair to team #9 ... if we expand to 12 teams, then the system will be unfair to team #13 ... if we expand to 16 teams, then the system will be unfair to team #17 ... might as well just let all the P5 schools make the playoffs.
The basic format of the postseason is heavily flawed when you're excluding at least one P5 conference champ (usually 2 and sometimes 3) from the CFP every year.
Your point would be stronger if all of the P5 conferences were at least somewhat equal in strength. The reconstituted Big XII (after Texas and Oklahoma bolt to the SEC) will be: Baylor; Brigham Young; Central Florida; Cincinnati; Houston; Iowa State; Kansas; Kansas State; Oklahoma State; Texas Christian; Texas Tech; West Virginia. Please don't try to convince me that that pile of garbage deserves the same playoff consideration as the SEC or Big Ten.
And what's the big deal about conference champs, anyway? We will eventually see a 7-5 team upset an 11-1 team in a conference championship game. Does anyone want to see that conference champ in a playoff?
I believe that there are usually 5 or 6 teams that put themselves in a position where it seems plausible for them to be in the playoff based on their performance over the course of the season. You say that 4 teams are more than enough, but I remember 2015 when OSU lost 1 game in a rainstorm, literally trailed for 0 seconds the entire season, and yet it was a foregone conclusion that they didn't deserve to make the playoff because other teams won their conference and didn't lose more than 1 game.
Take care of your business, play better, don't lose, etc. The playoffs will always be "unfair" to the teams that don't make it (see above).
The whole point of the playoff is to settle it on the field and remove the debate.
The playoffs are inherently "unfair" to the teams that don't make it. TCU still thinks that they got screwed in 2014, same for UCF in 2017. Nothing will ever be settled on the field to the satisfaction of everybody.
And in reality, adding more teams actually makes it less likely that a champion will be settled on the field and that debate will be removed. A #8 (or #12 or #16) seed has a fairly good chance of upsetting #1 seed, but very little chance (if any) to score three (or four) straight upsets and win an NC. A lucky upset that removes a serious contender makes it easier for the other contenders to win a title, which is kind of the opposite of settling it on the field, and definitely increases doubt about who was the best team.
The fact that there are blowouts can't be avoided, but you can easily plan to avoid excluding entire regions of the country for a chance at the national championship.
Why would anyone care about excluding entire regions of the country from the playoffs? I mean, if you really want to "settle it on the field" (as you stated above), then you should want the best teams from wherever, not a geographical mix.
I think 8 would be just about perfect.
Team #9 vehemently disagrees with this position.
