Having a tournament that is too deep will lessen the value of the regular season; look at the NBA, and they have an 82 game season as opposed to the 13 games NCAA FB plays. Whether that is good or bad, idk.
In theory, that’s true. But I don’t think it applies to CFB.
The problem is that the ranking system sucks. It’s inherently biased, and every season there are instances of outright corruption - where voters inflate their favorite team’s ranking and downgrade others to try to gain an advantage. There’s also the obvious scheduling disparities between schools.
Basketball has the advantage of playing 30 games (or 82 in the NBA) so even with some ratings bias there’s ample opportunity for the best teams to emerge. There’s some room for debate surrounding the bubble teams, and with exact seeding, but most years it’s pretty clear which teams belong in the top half - and history has shown that those are the teams with a realistic shot at a title.
A 12 game regular season gives enough of a sample to show who the best teams are, but it doesn’t necessarily provide enough to overcome ratings bias. A couple of voters can make the difference between a team being #4 or #5, getting into the playoff or not. Every year a very good team sits at #5 and ends up with no shot. Often those are teams that probably could win the NC if they got the right bounce. We’ve been near that conversation ourselves (before shooting ourselves in the foot in AC).
Opening the playoff to 12 teams - or even 8 - most likely includes all of the teams that have a realistic chance of winning. It does it with much more certainty than just picking 4 teams. It’ll be rare that anyone outside the top 5 wins a title, but it will end the days where #5 can complain about being left out.
It’s also harder to have Cinderellas in football than it is in basketball. One player can get hot in basketball and skew the result of a game. That’s much more rare in football. This also lessens the impact of early losses. In the current system, if you lose in week 2 or 3, you stand a good chance of missing the top 4 based on that alone. With the expansion, you can overcome an early loss (or even 2) and be well within the top 12. That flexibility also - at least in theory - makes it less sensible to schedule a bunch of cupcakes in the non conference schedule. You can afford to play good teams, because losing isn’t an automatic disqualifier, and winning might give you an edge.
Overall, I think it legitimizes the ultimate claim to the NC. And I think from a revenue perspective, a playoff has always been a better idea than the proliferation of bowls. I’m not convinced it’s best for the players - with respect to player safety or academics. I also think it increases the disparity between how much money the players are pulling in for the schools and the NCAA compared to how they’re being compensated.