College football only plays 10 games. Compare that to the NFL that has 16 games and 4 weeks of playoffs.
They are supposed to be going to school.
Also, the chance of injury against top flight competition increases, and huge rewards worked for a lifetime could be lost.
Just my opinion, but I’m satisfied with 4 teams. If they would simply take conference winners only into the tournament, they’d also increase the importance of conference play. Expand each conference to 16 teams, and you accommodate most of the Div I football schools.
As a hypothetical, it doesn’t really matter to me if Auburn is better than Oregon, if Florida has already beaten Auburn. By this format I’ve suggested, every game becomes important, every conference becomes important.
Let me add one other thought.
A one-and-out tournament is a method for getting a winner and having a party.
A real championship is best exemplified by Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association. Teams play each other for multiple games, and a good idea of how closely matched they are is really brought out.
The winner of a 5 or 7 game series is probably the better team. Even in a 4-3 split, it is an intangible at which they are better, even though extremely closely matched.
My point is that Ohio State could play Alabama next week and lose. Play them 7 games, and you’ll probably be able to pick the actually better team. Our former coach in Cincinnati, Brian Kelly, now with Notre Dame, used to quote someone who said that any FBS team can plan for, get lucky, and beat any other FBS team. Maybe just one in a hundred chance, but one game isn’t necessarily the best indicator.