quote:
Hell a couple years ago a 6 loss UCLA team played in the PAC12 title game.

Yeah, they definitely deserve a shot at the national title if they had won.

Hell, look at this year. A Wisconsin team that finished 8-6 on the year won the Big Ten... and only got a chance to play because the top one, no, the top TWO teams in the division were DQed.

But yeah, they should get in.

quote:
Getting a bye would be way too big an advantage. And I don't care about teams that aren't in AQ conferences. If they're in the top 4 they're in. If not, they don't deserve to be in.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. First, a bye is not a significant advantage compared to not even being able to play. I'm sure every #5 team in the country would rather face the #4 team and then the #1 team off of a bye instead of not being in at all. It's an advantage for #1, #2, #5 and #6 and a disadvantage to #3 and #4. Net gain.

As for strictly top-4, you've just passed the buck a step. Instead of "why didn't we let #5 in?!" it's "why is #5 not #4?!" You'll get the same bullshite problem.

For reference:

1998: Tennessee was 12-0, #1, and undefeated. After them you had five one-loss and one two-loss teams, all from power conferences, ranked 2-7. The 2-loss team, 11-2 Texas A&M, was #6, and the champion of the Big XII. The #3 team? 11-1 Kansas State, which Texas A&M had just beaten in the conference championship game.

2002: #4, 10-2 Southern Cal is in the title game in your situation. #6, 10-2 Washington State, the Pac-10 champion who beat #4 USC in the regular season, is shut out, as is #5, 11-1 Iowa.

2004: #6, 11-0 Utah gets shut out of the BCS in favor of #4, 10-1 Texas. Saying "I don't care about non-AQ teams" is great and all, but that's not legitimate justification for leaving them out of the playoff. There's also #9, 11-0 Boise State.

2005: Both the SEC champion Georgia (10-2, #7) and 10-1 Oregon (#5) get left off for 9-2, non-conference-champ Ohio State. Granted, a strict top-6 entry wouldn't save Georgia, but it would give the committee enough leeway to take them if they had six spots and weren't obligated to go with a poll. Top-4, let alone strict top-4? Nope.

2006: 12-1 SEC champ Florida, 11-1 Michigan, 10-2 LSU, 10-2 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 11-1 Big East champ Louisville, 11-1 Wisconsin, and 12-0 Boise State. Pick 3 and only 3, and come up with ironclad reason for cutting the other 4 out of the playoff. (The 6-team playoff struggles with this as well, but to a lesser extent.)

2007: 11-1 Big Ten champ Ohio State, 11-2 SEC champ LSU, 11-2 ACC champ Virginia Tech, 11-2 Big XII champ Oklahoma, 10-2 Georgia, 11-2 Missouri, 10-2 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 11-1 Kansas, 10-2 Big East champ West Virginia, 12-0 Hawaii and 10-2 Arizona State. Pick 4 and only 4, and give ironclad reason for cutting the other 7 out of the playoff. (Again, 6-team struggles to a lesser extent.)

2008: 12-1 Big XII champ Oklahoma, 12-1 SEC champ Florida, 11-1 Texas, 12-1 Alabama, 11-1 Pac-10 champ Southern Cal, 12-0 Utah, 11-1 Texas Tech, 11-1 Big Ten champ Penn State, 12-0 Boise State. Pick 4 and only 4, etc.

2009: 13-0 Alabama, 13-0 Texas, 12-0 Cincinnati, 12-0 TCU, 12-0 Boise State, 12-1 Florida. Pick 4.

2010: 13-0 Auburn, 12-0 Oregon, 12-0 TCU, 11-1 Stanford, 11-1 Wisconsin, 11-1 Ohio State. Pick 4.

2012: 12-1 Alabama, 12-0 Notre Dame, 11-1 Florida, 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State, and 11-2 Stanford (champ of the Pac-10, beat Oregon). Pick 4.

That's 10 of the 15 years of the BCS where a 4-team playoff would have had issues. A 6-team playoff only struggles with a couple of them.