The playoff raises the question we have debated endlessly: how good is good enough to deserve the opportunity to play for it all. The American system has slowly increased the number of entrants, from the days of MLB taking just the outright league winners to play in the World Series, to the current bloated playoff systems that care more about TV revenue than picking the actually best teams. The NFL led the way in that with wild cards, then expanded wild cards. Hockey and Basketball started with larger playoffs, but, like baseball, relied on longer series to weed out the undeserving, then nevertheless followed the NFL's lead to allow more teams into the pool.
After last season in the CFB, there was a feeling that only the completely deserving can run the playoff table. But looking at this year's results, that is less obvious. Miami didn't win its conference championship, and was a questionable add to the pool. It was a couple of good/bad bounces from winning the title. Miami made it into the final without playing a conference champion. IU--a deserving national title winner, don't get me wrong--also played no conference champions on the way to its title. With the one-and-done format in football, there is a much higher probability that, like has happened in the NFL, a wild-card team--one that squeaks its way into the playoff--will win the national title. While they will have won the games that mattered, will they have deserved to be there? Were they, in fact, one of the very best in college football that year, or did they just get hot at the right moment, and perhaps get lucky with the right matchups in the playoffs?
There probably is no "right" answer to this question, but in my view, the 12-team playoff is already bloated (look no further than JMU, Tulane, 3-loss Alabama, and the various 2- and 3-loss teams that claimed they should be in the field). 24 makes a complete mockery of the regular season.
But...cash is king.
