Now that we are in year 3 of the CFP, I would like to state some things that annoys me about it.

First, the argument of the most deserving vs the best team. This argument basically boils down to do we look at actual results or do we just go off on how we feel about the team at a particular time. The winner of the argument is the most deserving team...when people say pick the 4 best teams, the only way you can determine that is to determine who was the most deserving based on 12-13 data plot points.

Another bone to pick is what I will refer to as this year's USC team...there always seems to be a team that is horrible in the first half of the season and tears it up at the end. Everyone is saying you wouldn't want to see USC in the play-offs...guess what, they are hot now...how did they do when they had a few weeks of camp before the season started then started playing. Hmmm...that sounds familiar...almost sounds like when you have a few weeks after the season to practice, then start playing again around New Year's.

Oh, and another thing...I don't care how your team would have done if X, Y, Z player didn't get hurt. This is about the most deserving TEAM...and the last time I checked, the team is also made up of back-up players - that is why you recruit depth at all your positions.

The importance of being a conference champion is over-rated. Let me re-phrase...it is over-rated when determining the 4 most-deserving teams over the WHOLE season. The conference champion is determined over ~9 games - last time I checked, the season is 12 or 13 games for teams. It shouldn't carry the same weight as the play-off committee is allowing it to. This is just a concession to appease the Power 5 conferences.

Big wins and big losses...I have never liked the argument that a win over a top-ranked team is more important than other games. Who is better...the team that beat a 10-1 team but loss to a 1-10 team...or vice-versa...or who beat 2 5-5 teams...I am in favor of giving a rating to a team for the result of each game it played and average it out.

Yes - maybe two or three of the best teams do reside in the same conference in a given year...this also is an added argument about conference champions.

The tough one is the head-to-head argument. The way I look at it...each game is Team A vs Team B...not Mich vs OSU. Thus, I don't put a lot of weight on head-to-head...unless the teams are very close in your ratings and need a tie-breaker. For instance...do you think Pitt should be top 10? They did beat Clemson and Penn State and gave OSU a run for their money...oh that's right...they played 9 other games and didn't do as well. You have to play well every game to be top 4. On a side-note - Penn St would have 2 losses if they win Sat and OSU would have 1...but, they fail to mention that both would have 11 wins. That is one big thing about playing a conference championship is an added data spot to study.

Yes...I am rambling. I just feel we are back to a modified AP poll to determine the best team. I still like a combo of numbers/comp polls with a committee almost for a checks and balances. I know both are imperfect, but it never hurts to have too much info.

And if you want my opinion - go to 8 and to appease people, take the top 5 best ranked conference champions...overall, not just Power 5. This allows the non-Power 5 schools a shot as well as takes into account if an 8-5 team wins a championship but hasn't done well throughout the season...you may be able to get a really good non-power 5 champion in there. However, if all the Power 5 conferences do decent, you can reward those champions. Then, take the 3 best at-large schools (they can also be champions as well as independents). Rank the 8 teams in order, play at the better-seeded school the week after the conference championships...then let the final 4 work itself out. Yes, that goes against some of my earlier arguments, but I know with the setup that the Power 5 conferences won't manage to have a huge say on how the system works...ramble over.