Is the TCU the national champs? I would say no. TCU lost to Baylor, Baylor lost to Michigan State, Ohio State beat Michigan State. Same can be said for Oregon who also beat Michigan State. I know what you are saying though, the playoff should go to 8 teams, the P5 winners and 3 at large bids. I will admit that TCU looked really good the other day, but I also think that the SEC was way over rated. No matter how many teams you go to, there will be 1 or 2 teams that will feel slighted.
[WARNING...AN ABSURDLY LONG POST TO FOLLOW]
The transitive property doesn't work in sports. We all know that, yet we all pretend it does in college football because of bowls.
The reality is it needs to go to 8. Still keeps the regular season meaningful, and eliminates the arbitrariness of the selections. I mean, I think the SEC has been a very good conference, but hugely overrated in the BCS era because of the hype, and because voters had to make, more or less, arbitrary decisions among a number of potentially viable options. The SEC would have titles, still, and certainly the most, but not nearly as many, IMO.
A look back at the BCS SEC titles, and you'll see how somewhat arbitrary an SEC team's selection was, or, in many cases, the arbitrary nature of who they played was:
1998: Tennessee (undefeated):
deserved to play in the title game, but got a 1-loss Florida State (lost to a weak NC State) over a 1-loss Ohio State (1 close loss to Michigan State), a 1-loss Wisconsin (1 loss to Michigan), a 1-loss Kansas State (2OT to #10 A&M), 1-loss UCLA (close lost @Miami), a 1-loss Arizona (to UCLA). Florida State got in, they had by far
the worst loss, and it's quite possible any of those other teams could have beaten them.
2003: LSU (1-loss):
not a lot of controversy about them making the title game. Most BCS conference teams had two losses. But they played an OU team who got smashed in the BXII title game rather than UCS, who lost a 3OT game to Cal earlier in the year. Most people consider that USC team better than LSU (and they won the next one, and played for the one after that).
2006: Florida (1-loss):
Ohio State was undefeated going into the game, and so they were obviously one team. Florida was chosen over 1-loss Wisconsin, 1-loss Michigan (fair, they just lost to OSU), 1-loss Louisville, an undefeated
Boise State, and a 2-loss USC that could have possibly won the whole thing (although they would only make it in an 8-team iteration). SEC bias hadn't really kicked in, but the selection of Florida was somewhat
arbitrary. They destroyed OSU, so people don't necessarily criticize it, but if Alabama destroyed FSU for the National Title this year we might not make the argument for Oregon/OSU this year.
2007: LSU (2-loss):
Both were in 3OT, and they wiped the map with a 1-loss OSU, but this one is also tricky. They were selected over a 2-loss Mizzou, a 2-loss OU, a 2-loss West Virginia, a 2-loss Virginia Tech (they beat them, though), and a 2-loss USC. Again, this was probably the best
call, given who some of these teams lost to, but it's up for debate whether they were the 2-loss team that should have played Ohio State.
2008: Florida (1-loss):
they beat a 1-loss OU for the title. Both of them were selected over a 1-loss Penn State (good for the BCS...games vacated), an undefeated
Utah (who rolled Alabama in the BCS game), a 1-loss Boise State, and a 1-loss USC. Considering Florida was the #2 to OU's #1, it's conceivable any of of the other teams could have had a shot for the title, and only the SEC team got it, and its debatable that they were the best team.
2009: Alabama (undefeated):
almost certainly the best team that year, and the first undebatable one since Tennessee. They got an undefeated Texas team that year, too, so the matchup is about as good as the BCS could do...although TCU and
Boise State also finished undefeated. That Boise team had beaten Oregon that year, so they were legit, and they beat TCU in their BCS game. Again, Alabama was probably the best team in the country, but they weren't the only legit team to finish the season undefeated.
2010: Auburn (undefeated):
they beat an undefeated Oregon for the title. But Oregon may not have been the best Pac team that year. They beat Stanford at home, and that was Stanford's only loss, with mostly huge wins. Ohio State also finished that season with 1-loss, and took out a Top-10 Arkansas team in their bowl. TCU also finished undefeated
that year, and took out a 1-loss Wisconsin team in the Rose Bowl. So, for the second year in a row, the SEC team won a title, but weren't the only undefeated team at the end of the year.
2011: Alabama (1-loss):
this one is the biggest crock. Not only did they lose to LSU, and therefore not even win their division, but then they were rewarded with more rest! LSU had to go into another game after while Alabama got to get healthy. LSU was undefeated and deserved to be in any title conversation. Who should they have played if not
Alabama? Boise State finished with 1-loss. Stanford finished with 1-loss (and was really good), and Oklahoma State finished with 1 (2OT) loss. Probably one of those two, rather than Alabama again. But by this point the SEC-as-football-gods long since had taken over, and we got the abomination of this title game, rather than an LSU-Stanford or LSU-OSU game we deserved.
2012: Alabama (1-loss):
Alabama got their shot at Notre Dame over 1-loss Kansas State and 1-loss Oregon. Also, Ohio State finished undefeated. All of those teams would have beaten Notre Dame, but Alabama got the shot rather than them (OSU couldn't play, but I'm just bringing them up since they were
undefeated). Was Alabama better than Oregon? Maybe, but who knows. Everyone said they were better than Ohio State.