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

Because I like symmetry, we need OSU to make the playoff this year and for Clemson and Alabama to miss it. That would give OSU 3, Clemson 3 and the antichrist 4 appearances.  

On that subject:

Team	Appear	CFP Gm	W	L	%	Champ
Bama	4	7	5	2	0.714	2
Clemson	3	5	3	2	0.600	1
tOSU	2	3	2	1	0.667	1
Oklahoma	2	2	0	2	0.000	0
Georgia	1	2	1	1	0.500	0
Oregon	1	2	1	1	0.500	0
FSU	1	1	0	1	0.000	0
MSU	1	1	0	1	0.000	0
Washington	1	1	0	1	0.000	0

In 2014 obviously all four teams were new to the playoff because the playoff itself was new.  Since then:
First time CFP participants in 2015:

• #1 Clemson
• #3 Michigan State
• #4 Oklahoma

First time CFP participants in 2016:

• #4 Washington

First time CFP participants in 2017:

• #3 Georgia

My guess is that it will not be long before we have a year and then multiple years with no new CFP participants.  

Interesting about new teams getting in versus the "usual".  Does that start to diminish interest?  What if, in ten years, only ten programs have ever made the CFP?  We're at 9 now, so maybe that should be 12 or 14.

Same ol' same ol'.  Do programs like "Wisconsin" end up playing for a NY6 bowl with the apparent notion they have no shot?  (I know they have a shot would not consent otherwise.)  

USC has never made it, nor has ND.  

Who are the new teams most likely to make it?  USC, ND, Auburn, LSU, VaTech?, Wisconsin, PSU, UM, Texas, Stanford(?), ...

I was thinking that might be the thing that drives the push to 8 more than anything.  Alabama, Clemson, OSU, and soon Georgia (maybe Oklahoma) fatigue.  I watched the Rose Bowl last year, and went to bed partway through the Sugar Bowl.  My interest in watching more Alabama-Clemson is gone.

so in the theme of the thread I'd be wise to select #12 Michigan State or #19 Florida State?

I'll take Stanford

my other choices would be Michigan or USC

I think we may have this backwards.  In 4-5 year stretches, hasn't the top 4 always been populated by the same few teams?  If there's fatigue now, why any more than in the past?  If we went to 8 teams - guess what?  We'd have a larger handful of the same teams making the playoffs even more often.  The random, "down" year by Bama (10-2) would yield a playoff spot with 8 teams.  The larger the playoff, the more familiar faces there will be.


Regular season end, Top 4 rankings
4-year stretches, with 2-year overlap:
2012-15
ND, Bama, Florida, Oregon
FSU, Auburn, Bama, MSU
Bama, Oregon, FSU, OSU
Clemson, Bama, MSU, OU.............Bama 4, Oregon 2, MSU 2, FSU 2



2010-2013
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford
LSU, Bama, OK St, Stanford
ND, Bama, Florida, Oregon
FSU, Auburn, Bama, MSU...............Bama 3, Stanford 2, Oregon 2



2008-2012
OU, Florida, Texas, Bama
Bama, Texas, Cinci, TCU
Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford
LSU, Bama, OK St, Stanford............Bama 3, Texas 2, Stanford 2, TCU 2



2006-2009
OSU, Florida, Michigan, LSU
OSU, LSU, Va Tech, OU
OU, Florida, Texas, Bama
Bama, Texas, Cinci, TCU............OSU 2, Bama 2, LSU 2, Florida 2, Texas 2, OU 2


2004-2007
USC, OU, Auburn, Texas
USC, Texas, Penn St, OSU
OSU, Florida, Michigan, LSU
OSU, LSU, Va Tech, OU..............OSU 3, OU 2, LSU 2, Texas 2



Pretty consistent, no?  The teams cycle through a bit, but there's always a handful who peak in these stretches....

I'm going with USC (the real one).

This year we see that the last two years of stellar SC teams were due to Darnold’s arm, not Clay Helton’s coaching. 
Unless it’s Washington, don’t count on the PAC 12 for much this season.

So, Notre Dame is looking like a pretty good choice at the moment.  We'll see.  Duh.