I have to agree with most of this, except maybe the sentence after the first paragraph:
There will be fans of Alabama, South Carolina, Ole Miss, and even Miami, beating their chests and pounding their keyboards and shouting to everyone who will lis
bamahammer.com
Alabama did not belong in a 4-team playoff.
Alabama did not belong in an 8-team playoff.
But one can make the case for Alabama for a 12-team playoff, the problem being so many other cases can be made for so many other teams - and it all depends upon WHICH CRITERION gets the focus. My biggest beef wasn't even who got selected (I'm sorry, I just can't muster a bunch of fervor for our team this past year given the losses); my issue was this sudden made up rule of, "they aren't going to punish teams for losing conference title games."
So we've gone - in just ten years - from "a focus on conference championships" to "we aren't going to punish teams that don't win it." EITHER ONE is a defensible position but BOTH AT THE SAME TIME are not.
Since conference consolidation began with the SWC and Big 8 morphing into the Big 12, there has never - not "really" - been a single year that had more than 3 viable teams. The so-called "playoff" was (as krazy has noted time and again) always about the THIRD TEAM that was left out because a one-game championship might exclude a team whose sole point against them is "well, they started the year unranked." There has been PRESS COVERAGE pretending that Utah, Boise State, and TCU had legit claims pre-conference, but no actual fan was ever fooled by this nonsense, only Tim Brandos and other shills who have fantasies of "The Bad News Bears of College Football" being a real thing.