Why? What if one of the other teams who didn’t make it this year happened to have what it takes to beat Alabama or Clemson? But we’ll never know because they were never given a chance. What about UCF? They have not lost a game in two years, yet they’ve not even been given a chance to show what they can do against a true contender. How about Ohio State? Or even Washington and their stellar defense? All excellent teams. But we’ll never know because none of those teams were given a chance to show what they can do and instead we rely upon a biased selection committee who may or may not correctly choose the best teams to be involved.
This is why the NCAA Tournament selection committee is only tasked with choosing at-large teams from the pool of non-conference tournament winners and then seeding the teams. They specifically are barred from leaving out one conference tournament champion over another one, unlike in college football, where they routinely do that. Also, when you have a tournament as exclusive as the current CFP, you virtually eliminate the possibility of the Cinderella team making a run, which is one of the great aspects of the NCAA tournament. Did anybody honestly think that Loyola-Chicago was going to make a run to the Final Four last season until they did it? Has this made the sport less interesting and competitive, or, has it become the opposite because there are more possibilities for those types of things to happen? This whole notion that you should only be involved if and only if the “select few” say so smacks of aristocracy. Ridiculous that this line of thinking is still present in modern society. Why can’t teams make it in solely based upon earning their place?
Utah @ 
Baylor .
