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

With the minor quibble that I'd prefer the hosts to be the top-4 Champions rather than the top-4 teams I agree. 

I think your point about post-season fan-travel-fatigue is IMPORTANT and it is one of the reasons that I proposed home games in the first round.  I went to the BCSNCG at the Fiesta Bowl in 2003 when tOSU won the 2002 National Championship.  Back then the game before the Fiesta Bowl was the Michigan game in Ohio Stadium which I also attended because I had season tickets back then.  To see all the same things happen in the current set-up I'd have to attend:

• The Game against Michigan. 
• The B1GCG in Indianapolis. 
• The CFP Semi-Final. 
• The CFP Championship. 

We've already doubled it and tripled the number of games NOT at home.  It isn't just fan-travel-fatigue, it is also fan-spending-fatigue. 

For sure.

i think that is a compromise. conf champs auto qualify, IF they are ranked respectably. im not ok with a 4 loss whoever in just cause they lucked up. especially if it's over a team like uga who's had a phenomenal season but lost to another top team in the one game that guarantees them a spot.

in 2018 we could have had 7-5 pitt, 9-4 nw, 10-3 texas, 10-3 utah/wash, 12-1/13-0 uga/bama, 13-0 ucf as the auto qualifiers. that leaves 2 picks from:
12-1 bama or 11-2 uga
12-1 clemson
11-2 osu
10-2 mich
11-2 oklahoma
10-2 wazzu
12-0 notre dame

all of which are more deserving than at least 3 of the 6 above, probably 4.

So win your conference.  You had your chance.

I don't have any problem with the scenario you outlined. 

Edit: And that's really an extreme case, there's pretty much zero chance that the underdog is going to win every single CCG.  

I don't think that's true.  I think Baylor and Oklahoma State would be at the top of either the PAC or the ACC right now.  And BYU will be added in a couple of years, and they've just completed a 5-0 sweep of the PAC teams on their 2021 schedule, including beating PAC champ Utah.

I was curious so I looked, here are each P5 conferences' teams by ranking from the CBS 1-130 rankings and then I also included the top-16 G5's.  For purpose of this exercise I included OU and TX as SEC teams and BYU as a B12 team:


I'm  not sure what to do with Notre Dame.  They aren't a G5 but they also aren't fully IN the ACC.  They do have a scheduling deal with the ACC so maybe it would be fair to include them there, I don't know.  

Top third of the league (three for the B12, four for P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:

• 8.67 B12
• 9.8 SEC
• 12.2 B1G
• 22.6 ACC
• 26.25 P12

Middle third of the league (three for B12, four for P12, ACC, and B1G, six for SEC):

• 37.67 SEC
• 39 B1G
• 45.33 B12
• 55 ACC
• 63.25 P12

Bottom third of the league (three for B12, four for the P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:

• 76.4 SEC
• 80.66 B12
• 84.6 B1G
• 85.4 ACC
• 99 P12

Ok, you are right.  

I was curious so I looked, here are each P5 conferences' teams by ranking from the CBS 1-130 rankings and then I also included the top-16 G5's.  For purpose of this exercise I included OU and TX as SEC teams and BYU as a B12 team:


I'm  not sure what to do with Notre Dame.  They aren't a G5 but they also aren't fully IN the ACC.  They do have a scheduling deal with the ACC so maybe it would be fair to include them there, I don't know. 

Top third of the league (three for the B12, four for P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:

• 8.67 B12
• 9.8 SEC
• 12.2 B1G
• 22.6 ACC
• 26.25 P12

Middle third of the league (three for B12, four for P12, ACC, and B1G, six for SEC):

• 37.67 SEC
• 39 B1G
• 45.33 B12
• 55 ACC
• 63.25 P12

Bottom third of the league (three for B12, four for the P12, five for everybody else) average ranking:

• 76.4 SEC
• 80.66 B12
• 84.6 B1G
• 85.4 ACC
• 99 P12

Ok, you are right. 

LOVE that your laser-focused mind performed this exercise.  Seriously, that's great.

I've actually seen similar performed on B12 forums, which is why I was confident in my assertion. 

In general, people really don't understand how bad the ACC and PAC have been over the past decade or so.  And we used to be able to sort of excuse the ACC because Clemson was performing so well, but now even that is gone.

Oh, and Cincy is also joining the New B12, right?  Wonder what it looks like with them in the mix?

I fundamentally disagree that a team that beats a higher-ranked team is "crappy."  If that other team really was better, they had the chance to prove it on the field, and failed.  If they can lose to a crappy 4-loss suckbutt in their own conference, then my assumption then becomes they were going to lose to any of the "better" 0-loss and 1-loss teams that actually did make it into the CFP.  Why put a team into the CFP that didn't beat the 4-loss suckbutt from the other division?  The logic doesn't follow.

Everyone says "decide it on the field" right up until their preconceived notions of who is "better" are challenged.  That's total shite.

that's just demonstratively false. transitive property doesn't work in sports, especially cfb, and you know it. you're turning a whole season into 1 game. why put a team with 1 loss in the playoff over over one with 5? i'd rather reward a whole season's worth of good play and wins and 1 devastating loss, vs a whole season worth of bad losses and 1 miraculous win.

Honestly I think the fundamental answer to your point is this:It is a REALLY extreme hypothetical that DIDN'T ACTUALLY happen. 

In fact, Clemson beat Pitt, Ohio State beat Northwestern, and Oklahoma beat Texas.  With the 5+1+2 the actual teams in would have been:

• #1 Bama, SEC Champ
• #2 Clemson, ACC Champ
• #3 Notre Dame, at-large
• #4 Oklahoma, B12 Champ
• #5 UGA, at-large
• #6 tOSU, B1G Champ
• #8 UCF, G5
• #9 Washington, P12 Champ

The highest ranked team left out would have been #7 Michigan and I'm totally fine with that, LoL. 

right, it didn't happen then and it'll be an extreme outlier. but it will happen. very, very likely not to the extent in my post ,but it will happen.

even if it was just 7-5 pitt, that still puts in them instead of at least 1 of 12-1 clemson, 12-1 bama of 11-2 uga, 12-0 notre dame. even 10-2 mich and wazzu would be better.

I'm not talking about the transitive property at all.  Quite the opposite, I'm talking about on-field results directly between two competitors.

cool, so we're only concerned about a single competition, not the 12 others during the season?

FTR, Cincy, Houston and UCF are all joining the Big 12 along with BYU