Once again, you have to take into consideration that the sub-divided classifications for playoffs (4AA, 4A, 3AA, 3A). we had THE SAME NUMBER of teams making the playoffs.. That means 64 total 4A teams were making the playoffs then and 64 total 4A teams are making the playoffs now. Maybe it is a bit watered down, but I don't think going to 8A is going to help the situation either...
This current iteration of how the playoff seedings are done are rewarding teams who challenge themselves and schedule quality opponents. They aren't just throwing all the teams who finished lower in the conference into the playoff pool. They are picking the quality ones base on RPI. That is as fair as it gets, at the end of the day, numbers don't lie. Just to give you an example, my alma mater Page, is 3-7 and finished 5th in their 8 team conference, but had the 2nd toughest schedule in the state (according to Simmons), projections say we will get the 24th seed and it looks like they could be up against a 7-3 higher seed that played a much weaker schedule. That doesn't mean Page isn't a solid playoff team, it means that they have quite a few elite teams on the schedule.
People complained, ad nauseum for many years, that teams were being rewarded for playing a soft cupcake schedule and getting higher seeds, compared to teams that were perceived to be higher ranked with perceived tougher schedules (2011 4AA West was a great example, and it didn't work out well for them). The current system shuts down that whole conversation. A team can schedule a bunch of cupcakes in non conference and it could seem like they are "actually performing," but they aren't, and they end up coming up short in the playoffs.
