In the old system, does Indiana have a better shot?

[OG Goat Holder]

Speaking from the have not angle. For forever, we considered it near impossible for a have not to win the BCS. Boise got close, you may say Oklahoma State, maybe Oregon at the time. Got a little better in 4-teamer with Michigan State, TCU and Cincinnati.

This year would have been Indiana vs Georgia in the BCS (they’d have bumped Ohio State). 4 teamer would have been Indiana, Georgia, Ohio State, Texas Tech obviously.

I recognize NIL/portal changed things as far as depth but I do wonder if Indiana has it harder now because they have to beat Bama before they hit the final four.

I prefer this system though.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Personally, I'd rather know whether Alabama or Indiana is more deserving of a spot in the semifinals than just make an assumption.

Given that all of the top 4 seeds lost in the quarterfinals last year, there were probably a bunch of times in the 4-team era that they actually got it wrong, and we never knew it. Just like during the BCS, people always said things like "the BCS ultimately gets it right every year" and then the success of 3- and 4-seeds starting in 2014 showed us that it probably didn't.

And even if the bracket is all chalk, we get to have fun watching the games on the way there.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Given that all of the top 4 seeds lost in the quarterfinals last year, there were probably a bunch of times in the 4-team era that they actually got it wrong, and we never knew it.

There’s a lot to take issue with in that statement. The top 4 seeds last year weren’t selected the same way as this year. Everyone knew from the get go that they weren’t the 4 best teams. ASU and Boise State had no business whatsoever as Top 4 seeds, but got there due to the rules for conference champs. Oregon kind of got the shaft in the Ohio State rematch - a game they barely won in Eugene early in the regular season. Only thing somewhat surprising was UGA falling to ND.

Just like during the BCS, people always said things like "the BCS ultimately gets it right every year" and then the success of 3- and 4-seeds starting in 2014 showed us that it probably didn't.

I don’t really agree with this. Success of 3 and 4 seeds doesn’t mean they were actually the best teams over the course of the whole season during those years. It just means they got hot at the right time. You play a 4-team CFP ten times, you’re not going to get the same results every time. If you’re selecting only 2 teams, you select the best 2 from over the course of the season and let them duke it out. Nobody ever said that the 3rd or 4th best team couldn’t beat #1 or #2 in that same setting. But at the end of the day, they didn’t earn the shot.

A CFP of any size (even only 2 teams) is simply deciding the title winner on the field with a tournament. Just like there are 5 or 6 teams every year that just miss the NCAA Basketball tournament but could be good enough to conceivably get to the Sweet 16, so too are there going to always be way more teams capable of reaching a certain level of success than are actually granted a shot in the CFP. You simply have to draw the line somewhere to ensure the regular season still carries some weight.