Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If a team goes twice or more and nobody notices, were they really there?

Nicole Auerbach was noting how the 4 team CFP is just dividing the haves into an extreme upper crust of haves.

It's basically, you want to win a title?  You have three choices.  And nothing else matters.

You go to 8, you add auto-bids.  Hey, maybe Northwestern can pull an upset and go.  I don't know.  But the gap is only growing because if you choose to go anywhere other than Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State, you are basically saying "I have no interest in winning a national title" in an age where ESPN is telling everyone that it is the only thing that matters.

We took the best regular season in sports, and maybe made it the worst.  Even if Clemson overlooks Syracuse, or Alabama overlooks Ole Miss, or Ohio State overlooks Purdue, eh 1 loss doesn't end anything.  They'll still likely get into a CCG, when they are laser focused, and will likely win.  Or if not, they'll be #4.

It's a great system for determining who the best team is.  Better than the old system, because it's still small enough that no "fluke" team can win, but now it's big enough that there are enough fail-safes built in for the best teams to get beyond one fluky upset.  So if what you want is to know who the "best" team is, it's nearly perfect.  But at what cost to the entertainment value?

No, I don't think she's saying that.  Simply that it has resulted in cementing the top teams even farther

That's what I always have in mind:  competition vs entertainment.  I probably lean too far towards competition, but I'm aware of that.  I am flexible enough that this 4-team playoff is okay and MAYBE a 6-teamer with 5 conference champs +1.  I'm not a fan of automatically including a G5 team, though.  To me, they haven't earned it - the program hasn't earned it.  I'd always give the extra spot to an at-large P5 team, with a caveat:  if at all possible, it goes to a team that didn't get a chance to face its conference champion.  So say Iowa goes 11-1, is the West co-champ with 11-1 Wisconsin, but doesn't play in the CCG with an East winner, they'd be a prime candidate. 
.
For people who want 8 or more teams, go watch college basketball.  No, I'm not saying look at the model it creates, literally, just go watch it and leave football alone.  For all of you who want the results of the games to matter, how can you be in favor of an overly-inclusive playoff?  I don't want any system letting a 3-loss quirk win it all.  Or a 2-loss team who lost to 2 teams above it already. 
.
In an ideal world for me, we'd go back to the old bowl system and have a +1 when necessary after the bowls.

.
I just agree with you.

That's what I always have in mind:  competition vs entertainment.  I probably lean too far towards competition, but I'm aware of that.  I am flexible enough that this 4-team playoff is okay and MAYBE a 6-teamer with 5 conference champs +1.  I'm not a fan of automatically including a G5 team, though.  To me, they haven't earned it - the program hasn't earned it.  I'd always give the extra spot to an at-large P5 team, with a caveat:  if at all possible, it goes to a team that didn't get a chance to face its conference champion.  So say Iowa goes 11-1, is the West co-champ with 11-1 Wisconsin, but doesn't play in the CCG with an East winner, they'd be a prime candidate. 
.
For people who want 8 or more teams, go watch college basketball.  No, I'm not saying look at the model it creates, literally, just go watch it and leave football alone.  For all of you who want the results of the games to matter, how can you be in favor of an overly-inclusive playoff?  I don't want any system letting a 3-loss quirk win it all.  Or a 2-loss team who lost to 2 teams above it already. 
.
In an ideal world for me, we'd go back to the old bowl system and have a +1 when necessary after the bowls.

The last part would be especially interesting if we had a committee voting on whether a +1 was needed and who would play in it.  THAT would get people talking.