BYU is the at large. Louisiana is in as a conference champ. It's not the five best G5 teams, it's the five G5 champions. You either win your conference, or your season's over
As I said earlier, I really do like at least the general concept of this idea. I think it would merge well with my preferred 5+1+2 8-team playoff.
I also think, as you have pointed out, that this would give every team something to play for even after they were out of the NC race. IMHO, the biggest problem with the playoff is that it basically sucks all the oxygen out of the room. CFB seems to be viewed as this VERY small group of teams legitimately in the CFP/NC race and then a bunch of also-rans who don't matter. That is a big part of why there is diminished interest in the non-CFP bowls, even the bigger non-CFP bowls like the Rose.
I look at that this year. My team is 10-2, ranked #6, and headed to the RoseBowl and I'm just not excited about it. If you got in Marty and Doc's DeLorean and went back and found me in my dorm or apartment in the mid 1990's and told me that the Buckeyes would be #6 and going to the Rose Bowl I'd have been ecstatic. Now, I'm basically glad a bunch of seniors are opting out because I'd rather see the Buckeyes get a good workout for the 2022 team than see them win the RoseBowl.
The CFP has created that. I just don't care much because it isn't the CFP and on some level once you aren't in the CFP what difference does it make if you are in the Rose Bowl or the Detroit Bowl?
Back to your proposal:
How are you choosing at-larges and arranging G5 Champs after you run out of ranked teams? Ie, for the G5 Champs you have:
- #4 Cincy, AAC
- #23 Louisiana, SBELT
- nr UTSA, CUSA
- nr UNI, MAC
- nr UNI, MAC
I organized them as you arranged them and I don't disagree but how would you rank the unranked G5 Champs?
Similar question for the P5 non-Champions: Are you ranking them by ranking or by record (overall or league) and what tiebreakers are you using since there will obviously be LOTS of ties to break. For example, within the B1G this year:
- #2 12-1/8-1 Michigan
- #6 10-2/8-1 Ohio State
- #10 10-2/7-2 Michigan State
- #15 10-3/7-2 Iowa
- 8-4/6-3 Minnesota
- 8-4/6-3 Wisconsin
- 8-4/6-3 Purdue
- 7-5/4-5 Penn State
- 6-6/3-6 Maryland
In your scenario it looks like you have MSU getting into tier-2 as an at-large (where I presume their standing within the B1G is irrelevant) and Iowa relegated to tier-3 as the best remaining B1G team when tier-3 is selected. What if MSU were not an at-large. Which of Iowa/MSU would be considered the B1G's next best after Champion Michigan and #2 tOSU? They have the same league record (7-2) and both were perfect OOC. MSU is 1/2 game better overall but Iowa's "extra" loss came in a game that MSU didn't qualify for. I can truly see both sides of this argument. On one hand the Hawkeyes shouldn't be punished for losing a game that MSU wasn't good enough to get into but on the other hand one can make a strong case that Iowa's participation in and MSU's non-qualification for the B1GCG were both a product of the divisions in which they play. Switch them and MSU is the B1G-W champ while Iowa is a B1G-E also-ran. Also, the desire not to punish Iowa for losing the CG is at least partly due to an unstated assumption that MSU would have lost the CG had they gotten there. Well the obvious problem with that is that the Spartans actually played Iowa's CG opponent . . . and beat them.
Once you get #3/4 sorted out you get to the real mess. Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Purdue all went 8-4/6-3 and none of them are ranked so you can't use that as a guide anymore. Now what? It looks like you sorted by H2H2H where MN was 2-0, UW was 1-1, and PU was 0-2. Thus you have:
- Minnesota in tier-4 going to the Las Vegas Bowl to face UtSt on 12/27
- Wisconsin in tier-5 going to the Hawaii Bowl to face UCLA on 12/25
- Purdue in tier-5 (at large?)* going to the Alamo Bowl to face KSU on 12/24
Arguments for and against each of the three:
- Minnesota: The obvious argument for the Gophers is that they went 2-0 against the other two. I know for most people that is all they need to know but I want to point out that those are their two best wins BY FAR and that they also have BAD losses to BGSU and Illinois.
- Wisconsin: The Badgers looked awful in a 1-3 start but ND and M both finished in the top-5 so those are "good" losses. Then they looked to have everything figured out in a seven game winning streak before losing the Ax game to rival Minnesota. The arguments for are the blowout win over Iowa and that they have no bad losses and that their loss to MN was close while they blew out PU. The argument against is that they DID lose to Minnesota and that PU and IA are their only quality wins.
- Purdue: The arguments for are their quality wins (blowouts of MSU and IA) and no bad losses. The obvious argument against is that they lost to both MN and UW.
*Purdue as an at-large: I actually asked this question earlier in this post but how are you selecting at-large teams after you run out of ranked teams? Purdue is 8-4/6-3 and I would assume that there are other similarly situated P5 teams so how are you ranking them?
