possibly, but that would take us back to pre 1973 NCs in which everyone questions legitimacy of national championships
I believe firmly in teams being punished for bad losses. .
I think many college football fans don't understand the playoff system and how it works. Resume trumps feelings and perception. In the BCS it was the other way around in 2/3 of the voting. Clemson's and Michigan's resume trumps most teams in the country, but rankings this week DO NOT matter because there are so many key games left to play that you don't know the 4. Also take into account this really isn't a true playoff system. Its a plus 1 system that the venues are bowl games. So there is little reward of being #1 as opposed to #4. The rankings are irrelevant as long as you are in.
Top 4 teams don't lose those games.
the 2014 national champ lost to an unranked team at home. Oklahoma lost to an unranked team last year. But can you make a case against either? You could maybe make a case against tosu, but you will have to say the cfp is corrupt, and the whole thing is a sham. But that's a different debate.
Point is mulligans happen twice as often in a playoff and quasi playoff system
A loss against a ranked opponent in a tough game? Sure. A loss against an unranked team? No.
Based on what rankings? PSU was unranked when they beat tosu but now they are scratching on the door of playing for a national championship. The CFP rankings are a magic trick in what happens behind the top 10 rankings because they posture certain teams to help spread the wealth amongst conferences to get in. If you look at things behind the top 10, you can see that it really benefits teams from the PAC 12 to get back into the championship discussion, but really how many of those teams could stay on the field with a team like LSU who is ranked #24?
