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

If you eliminate at larges then, I'd be ok with that.

I don't HATE a 12 team, all 10 auto bids, 2 at large model either.  I like having a reason to pseudo care about Sun Belt and CUSA races, and let their chamos, a couple at larges, and a conference champion who currently would be excluded play it out to get into a 4 team playoff.

I'd rather not include the Go5 at all. For example: When it comes to paying players, I'm hoping the schools write zero checks and merely open the players to independently pursue their own market value. But if that doesn't happen and the schools do cut checks, my consolation would be how that forces the Go5 to cut and run into their own level with its own rules, completely insulated from the P5s, perhaps not even permitting OOC games between the P5 and Go5.

I'm fully on board with players pursuing their own values independently, as long as you still identify and exclude boosters.

The trouble with excluding boosters is the missed opportunity to forever stop that kind of illegal thing with transparency ("accept it; it's yours. Now keep track of it with us for tax purposes") in order to voluntarily keep up the blind eye.
Now, I'm OK with what feels like a mistake. Because letting the players grab cash for their image and likeness is revolutionary, so whatever. Plus I think the persuasive element of cheating with boosters will be diminished by players accessing their market value elsewhere. Everyone wants money, but the players don't want to hurt their teams. Where's the break even point where the booster value falls beneath the value of not risking damage to their team?
I also understand the counterargument: that simply legalizing booster payments is unbalanced competitively (Helmet boosters can pay more than non-Helmet boosters). But so are payments from car dealership commercials, etc. And if booster payments become legal, were taxable, and EA sports/advertiser payments prove significant, I think the $100 handshakes (wouldn't strictly go away but) would become much less prominent, and the problem will have partially resolved itself.

I'm also cool with another split, and leaving the Group of 5 behind.  But as long as they are all the same level, I kind of like 10-2, if only because there is always a bottom, and if the P5 breaks away, where is the next line?

If Northwestern and Pitt get in, isn't that the bottom? I wasn't imagining the CCG winners taking the top seeds. I was just figuring that they'd be a lock to get in. And then seeded by a committee, with NU and Pitt at the bottom because who could be lower?.

And I think rankings should lock before the CCGs, and they just determine auto bids.  I hate that you are better off missing your CCG than qualifying and losing.

I don’t think all rankings should be locked in prior to the CCG’s but I think the teams that didn’t make it to their CCG should hit their rankings ceiling that week.  So last year Bama was 5 going into championship weekend.  That’s as high as they could go.  They could drop, but not go up.  Teams that qualify for the CCG can go up or down.

I still like the 5-1-2 model best.  I'm also interested in only seeding 1-4 and letting those teams, in order, pick their opponent from the other 4.

I also think there needs to be a top 15 or whatever caveat to the auto bids.  I like the auto bid idea generally, but I don't like the chance of Northwestern upsetting Michigan or Pitt upsetting Clemson and getting in.

either the conference championship means something or it doesn't
you don't get a bump for beating a good team like Northwestern, but Northwestern doesn't get in for pulling the upset?
if it's s poor way to determine the conference champ then do away with the champ game to avoid upsets that clearly aren't the best team in the conference
hey, it's a stupid single elimination tournament anyway, so why not allow Northwestern this season if they knock off OSU or UofM?

Because valuing one game over 12 is dumb.

So you would still want a poll after the championship game?

But yeah, say we end up with an 8-team playoff and the championship game is an undefeated team vs a 3-loss team.  If the undefeated team loses, we'd have a 3-loss national champ.  Not the best team, not the best resume, they just happened to win the final game.


Wouldn't that be fun.

But yeah, say we end up with an 8-team playoff and the championship game is an undefeated team vs a 3-loss team.  If the undefeated team loses, we'd have a 3-loss national champ.  Not the best team, not the best resume, they just happened to win the final game.


Wouldn't that be fun.

Win your conference -> get into the playoff.
Win the playoff -> you're the champion.
Happens in almost every other sport. They've got other things, such as wild card, or in the proposed 5+1+2, an "at large" berth, to take care of worthy teams who didn't win their conference. 
But all this "best team" stuff is just helmet-glorification.