Sooners.

[Rockefella]

I agree - I think the issue with the current system which I have little understanding of is that there can be several teams viewed as the top 2 teams in the nation, maybe as many as 5 or 6 at most I'd say vying for that spot. IF you take the top 8, it's not that critical of not all are the absolute best as the lower ranked ones are not as crucial frankly, what matters is you have a good 3 to or 6 teams that are viable for the best in the nation and the rest don't matter that much as though they could squeak by they probably will be beaten - and it somehow doesn't seem as bad if 8 and 9 are mixed up in an 8 team playoff system instead of 2 and 3 being mixed up in the current system.

Right. It's kind of how I see the NCAA Tournament bracket of 65 teams. 16 per quartet and the one play-in game. The #15 or #16 teams don't really have a shot, but it gives teams like a #11 George Mason a chance as they showed in 2005/6 when they reached the Final Four.

[scottie300z]

8 versus 9 I can't see as too big of a problem. Where I think people scratch their head is with the likes of an undefeated Utah not having a chance at the national title since their conference/schedule isn't up to terms with the powerhouse schools. With that, arguments can be made for USC, Texas, etc.

It's possible for a TCU to go undefeated and be ranked 9 though. And then you have the same problem. This year Utah ended up 6th before the bowl games but only because the sec didn't have a normal year.