It's a lot better than having all those 6-6 teams making a bowl game! With what you stated I guess there's no parity in CFB and MCBB either!
In men’s college basketball the record is 135-1 in the 16 verses one matchup. With the 2 seeds it is 132-8. (Not sure why the difference in total number of games.) You could argue that football has even less parity because it’s tougher to field a 125 person team than a 11 person team. I cannot remember the last time that there were more than eight teams in college football that had a legitimate chance of winning the national championship. Therefore, as I stated earlier, if your goal is to crown a legitimate champion why have more than eight teams? I have always felt that four was not enough, because there’s been many times that teams ranked fifth or sixth had a legitimate chance to win the title. A couple examples that come to mind was TCU and Baylor in 2014, and UCF in 2017. However past eight, none have a realistic chance. Also, due to scheduling differences it is sometimes difficult to determine who are the best four teams. I’m not saying anything about the parity, because obviously in all reality there is not parity at the upper echelon’s in the first round, but March madness is extremely unique, for reasons that we all understand, and there’s no reason to discuss at this time.As far as the bowl games, that is also unique because of the amount of sponsorship money that it brings to colleges, regardless of the records of the teams that are playing, or the empty stadiums for the games. Therefore, what I’m saying is that you’re bringing up unrelated topics. My personal stance is that if you want a legitimate champion in college football you should expand it to 8 teams. Almost every year there are at least five or six teams with a legitimate shot to win, but there is seldom more than eight, therefore, no reason to have a first round of watered down games.