would have won it all. What I am saying, is that in an expanded playoff format, you have a two loss blue blood, and a team that made a P4 conference championship. If you have to expand to 16 to allow them to participate, so be it.

because of the subjective nature of your opinion. I believe the premise is all wrong. I would go to a 24 team playoff like the FSC in a heartbeat. Not directed at you specifically, but who the hell are you(we) to determine whether or not a team deserves to be in the playoffs? All you are doing with your bias is promoting weak OOC schedules, and keeping the G5 from sending more teams to compete. The more teams that have a chance to go to the dance, the less the P2 has the ability to attract all of the talent. That includes the ACC and B12 as well. If Oregon is in fact the best team this year, then they will win the games, expanded, or not. We both know however, that he "best" team doesn't always win in college athletics. The more kids that participate, the better - television ratings and money be damned.

That's a completely nonsensical reason to disagree. Anyone is free to have an opinion on who is deserving. Obviously only a small group gets to actually determine it. Disagreeing is fine, but it gets done with facts and logic to refute the subjective opinion.

change my opinion. FBS is the only collegiate sport who's champion is based on polls. The monopolistic bowl tie ins over the decades produced these "blue bloods". The recent consolidation of the conferences, coupled with the "private" playoff committee, just perpetuates the monopoly. I can make a factual case for that "opinion", but I digress.

refs. VT game was bad. The Cal game was a crime. They may not be a top 20 team. That defense is pathetic I admit not knowing much about Iowa State. If they beat AZ State, they are very deserving. Instead, they got absolutely smoked. That shut their chance down, and deservedly so.

And what I mean by that is that they are not Top 10 teams no matter how you slice it.

national champion like the good ole days (which weren't always good). Why even play games if there are people that decide who is the best team?

The best 6 teams are all playing on New Year's. Any of those 6 could win it all. And I'd like to see how ASU and Boise do as well. They deserve to be there too, ISU just got curbstomped by ASU. Total joke.

Don't mind the 0-12 record. Just a perception. In all seriousness, Miami didn't even make the title game in the ACC. And the two teams that did got boat-raced by two non champions from the SEC and B1G. That's not "perception" nor an aberration. Now if ASU wins it all and blows out every opponent even worse than they did ISU, then perhaps we could technically revisit it. But let's be real.

were right. If they lose? Guess we will have to revisit, like you say. Did anyone see a wild card Oakland winning? A 6 seed 11-5 Pittsburg? (I know the NFL is different). My point is, Oregon didn't play Miami, nor did they play any of Miami's opponents. Substitute any team in the ACC or any team from the B12. I'd say G5, but all of the "top" teams have a lot of Kent States on their schedule. What exactly are the blue bloods afraid of. We all assume the games will be blowouts, so why don't they play them?