Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

But that's my point. It's easier to do it when it's an 11-2 Stanford [that won its CCG] or an 11-2 Georgia [that didn't], but it's not whether or not this is the best team.
Likewise, I don't think Notre Dame is one of the best 4 teams in the nation, but there was NO way they weren't getting in.
I'm not arguing against Notre Dame based on resume. They deserve to be in. But I don't believe they're one of the best 4 teams, and I think Clemson is going to show that convincingly.
I keep highlighting these points because, as I've consistently said, the BCS or the CFP puts us in the question of whether you want the "most deserving teams" or the "best teams". Most deserving is based on resume. "Best" is based on a subjective evaluation by the experts.
The committee is inconsistent. Georgia might be better than OSU, but they're not as deserving when you consider resume. Yet the committee puts them 5th to insulate themselves from the argument of whether it should be OU or OSU in the playoff. OU/UGA/OSU are probably better than Notre Dame. But Notre Dame gets the benefit of the doubt based on resume; I'm not convinced it's based on quality.
5+1+2 gives you the best of both worlds. It gives you six teams who deserve to be there because of what they've accomplished ON the field--they won their conference. And it gives you two at-large teams so that teams who legitimately are some of the best in the nation are not excluded.

I'm not for it per se, but I agree with what you said here.  With two at-large teams the best team that could possibly be excluded would be #3 and that would be EXTREMELY unlikely to ever happen because in most years AT LEAST two of the top four will be P5 Champs.  
Best team that would have been left out each year with a 5+1+2:

• 2018:  #7, 10-2 Michigan:  Sucks for them but don't lose two games and not win your conference.  
• 2017:  #7, 10-3 Auburn:  Sucks for them but don't lose THREE games and not win your conference.  
• 2016:  #8, 10-3 Wisconsin:  Sucks for them but don't lose THREE games and not win your conference.  
• 2015:  #8, 10-2 Notre Dame:  Sucks for them but don't lose two games and choose not to play in a CG.  
• 2014:  #8, 10-2 Michigan State:  Sucks for them but don't lose two games and not win your conference.  

Most years would be like this.  The best team left out would be ranked ~ 7-9.  Once in a while all six auto-bids would be in the top eight and the best team left out would be #9.  Once in a while you'd have three weak Champions and #5 or #6 would get left out.  

A one-loss P5 team would basically never be left out.  I view that as a blessing and a curse.  It is a blessing because there would be a REALLY good answer anytime somebody started whining about their team not getting in "don't lose twice".  It is a curse because it would effectively give EVERY P5 team a mulligan and substantially detract from the "every game matters" feel of the sport.  

My team's experience this season really reinforces that feeling.  They had only one loss and they are not in the CFP.  Each game is (or at least can be) a REALLY big deal.  

it's the name, not the alignment

I'd REALLY like to see B1G commish Jim get up to the podium and address the issue/issues

First of all, he should state that the B1G is not going to change it's scheduling to water down it's contests for it's players, programs, and fans just to try to sneak into the playoff to grab a few dollars.

Then he should call out the SEC commish for that very thing and also call him out for whining and begging to get in a second team that did not win the conference, scheduled Austin Peay, Middle Tennessee, & UMass

Had the B1G still been playing 8 games like the Southern Conferences, maybe OSU doesn't play Purdue and instead plays Bowling Green. Hmm.

Had the B1G still been playing 8 games like the Southern Conferences, maybe OSU doesn't play Purdue and instead plays Bowling Green. Hmm.

And Michigan fans would be busting our chops for losing to a team from the MAC

Thank you. You do acknowledge that a fair amount of time there is going to be teams in that setting that is obviously a step or 2 below other champions?

Yes, that is a possibility. But I would much prefer that to what we have now where the goal posts for making the top 4 are constantly moving to appease the talking heads at ESPN. 

My constant suggestion for an NCAA "rule" would be to schedule 10 P5 teams on your slate each year, however you want to go about it.

Two pastries and ten P5 teams (which would include ND and perhaps a few other indies).  Navy might make some money off this scheme.

Why not? What if an undefeated G5 team gets in and has to play Alabama? Wouldn't that be just as bad?

You're talking about a 1 in 1000 chance of something that may never happen. You had 2 cases this year of a team with 4 or 5 losses playing in a P5 CCG and neither came close to winning. But if they did, so what? Let them have their shot. I'm personally tired of a group of people deciding who is in the top 4 or top 12 with some subjective, ever changing criteria. Establish a clearly defined criteria for making it to the playoff and make sure everyone is aware. And if some 4 or 5 loss team, defies the odds and makes it, good for them.

i think we're being blinded by how lucky we've been during the actual playoffs to not have crazy upsets. it's worked out really well. but that's not true for most of cfb history. it's very unusual, actually.
since 2000, these conf champs would have muddied the cfp by winning conf titles (record are pre-bowl games):
2000 - 8-3 purdue (either 1 loss oregon st or va tech would have been left out, both won their bowls over top ranked teams)
2001 - 9-3 lsu (but this works out decent as no 1 loss or better gets left out, though the final rank #3 (uf) and 4 (tenn) teams both get left out, but had 2 losses pre-bowl)
2002 - 9-4 fsu (again, works out as no 1-loss pre bowl get left out, but final rank #4 (usc), #5 (ou), #6 (tex) and #7 (k st) all get left out)
2003 - 11-3 k st (works out again, but #4 osu gets left out with 2 losses)
2004 - 8-3 pitt (1 loss cal, 1 loss #6 louisville (not a p5 at time, but lone loss was by 3 to #3 miami), and undefeated boise st
2005 - 8-4 fsu (no 1 loss, but #4, 5 and 7 all get left out)
2006 - no one really, maybe 2 loss wake? but either 1-loss mich or wiscsonsin plus #3 lsu (2 losses) get left out.
2007 - lots of 2-loss teams in, but none egregious, but 2 of #2 uga, 1 loss kansas, and #4 mizz get left out.
2008 - 9-4 vt (this is the real fustercluck, choose 2 of 0-loss utah and boise, 1 loss bama, texas, and texas tech)
2009 - really clean, but still gotta pick between undefeated tcu or boise
2010 - 4 loss uconn (leave out either 1 loss mich st or stanford)
2011 - 3-loss clemson and wvu (leaving out either 1 loss bama or stanford)
2012 - 5 loss wisk (1 loss uf and oregon both get left out) (undefeated osu not eligible, stupid ncaa)
2013 - finally one works out perfect, no bad admissions and no bad omissions either.
2014 - another really clean year with no real arguments.
2015 - 3 in a row!
2016 - 4! crazy.
2017 - 5 - this can't be, but it is
2018 - 3-loss washington, leave out 2 of 2-loss uga, wash st, and mich. some snub, but not huge.
the last 5 or so years would have worked out really good for a 5+1+2, but going back any further and it gets disastrous most seasons with bad omissions.
point is it's not a 1 in 1000 chance. in fact, it's probably a >50% chance, we've just been really lucky the last few years that it would have worked out nicely.