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

Under that system schools like Cincy and Boise that are constantly in the playoff hunt would have a tremendous recruiting advantage over a middle of the road P5 team that has little to no chance of ever getting in. 

I know some of you like criticizing me no matter what I say, and that's cool.  It seems to be what the internet is all about. 
.
My larger, overall point when it comes to the have-nots of college football winning it big or having something to look forward to is that in BOTH circumstances, both now and in an expanded playoff, the lie that they're in the same division as the upper 2/3 of the P5 programs.  And that the lie doesn't go away with 8 or 12 teams in the playoff. 
.
I don't understand why so many people want them in this purgutory forever for some impossible upset every 3 decades, THEN getting squashed in the next round.  It's what I would design if I hated these programs - toturing them, making them have very public destructions, all while dangling that pretty brass ring perpetually out of reach.  It's demented.

I think the problem you are having is thinking everyone doesn't already know this. Obviously, some teams are at a disadvantage. Everyone who pays mild attention to college football, including the players and coaches for these teams, know this. The issue, for me, is you think that is meaningful and the end of the argument  It is not meaningful Right now, under the system we have, 90 percent of the teams have no real chance at entering the playoffs. Roughly half are excluded because they are in the wrong conference, which means that no matter what they do on the field, they are eliminated. Of the teams in the right conference, the vast majority are average to middling and have a tough time competing against the handful of programs that are top of the class. 

Who cares if Alabama blows out somebody? That happens all the time, including in the playoffs. You are claiming the regular season shouldn't matter, the results shouldn't matter, the only thing important to make sure the very top teams are as protected as possible and everyone else should be excluded so we can have some sort of "true" playoff. Not my preference (even as a fan of one of those teams).

I'm a proponent of the 5+1+2 system. It will produce one slaughter, not 3-4, but it actually does still give the G5 a meaningful path to have a seat at the table. I'd probably be willing to watch #8 UAB vs #1 Bama in the quarters just in case of an upset, but am I going to watch #11 UAB vs #6 Oregon? Eh... I don't really care if UAB upsets Oregon...

If you water the playoff down too much, those early games aren't going to be compelling TV.

I used to be for that, but my thinking changed in 2016 when Penn State beat OSU and won the B1G in a thrilling game against Wisconsin. That was fun, and also counted for nothing because playing your way into the playoffs is not a thing as long as you have a group of poindexters determining who is in and who is out and can include or exclude anyone based on anything they want.

I'm confused... Why would 2016 B1G mean that you don't favor the 5+1+2 system?

Penn State would have earned a playoff berth with that B1GCCG win. That game wouldn't have counted for nothing.

Ohio State would still have a shot at an at-large with their season, after going 11-1 in-conference and beating OU out of conference.

So if we have a 5+1+2, the poindexters only have to worry about selecting the 2 and seeding... And maybe picking the best G5 of the tall midgets.

Don't get me wrong, I like autobids for the Power 5. But I don't like limiting it to the Power 5. Why should half the teams be subjected to the Poindexter Boardroom when we have a pretty easy way to get rid of them entirely besides the at large bids.

Don't get me wrong, I like autobids for the Power 5. But I don't like limiting it to the Power 5. Why should half the teams be subjected to the Poindexter Boardroom when we have a pretty easy way to get rid of them entirely besides the at large bids.

Several reasons...

• I don't like 12 teams. The CFP already sucks the air out of anything that's not the playoff (i.e. the bowls and anything else that denotes a successful season other than making the CFP). The more teams we have, the more that occurs...
• The G5 don't have any reasonable ability to win... And never will. Even if access to a playoff improves their recruiting, all it does is take away players who would go to Purdue, not players who would go to OSU or Bama or Clemson etc. Those players won't ever win the NC. It's like if you removed all salary caps from NFL/MLB/NBA/etc, then the small-market teams might occasionally qualify for the playoffs, but they'll do so by stealing talent away from the mid-market teams, not the large-market teams.
• I really don't like 16 teams. If you allow all 10 conferences auto-bids, then you run into the size issue that 2 at-large is too small. And then you get back to point #1--if we're talking about the playoffs sucking all the air out of the room, then once you go to 16 teams the bowls might as well pack up and stop hosting. 

I recognize the goal to get rid of the Poindexters--even as a giant nerd. The process for the entire history of CFP has been a beauty pageant. But I don't agree that we need to go to a 12 or 16 team playoff and let every G5 in to make it fair, because that doesn't really reflect the reality of the sport. 

In my mind the ideal playoff is as small as you can possibly make it, but no smaller. I think 5+1+2 is the optimal for that.

1 G5 spot would probably be enough, but there are probably some legal gobbledygook that inspires them to have autobids for the entire G5. 

Either way, same number of P5 autobids and at large spots; 5 and 2. 5+1+2 or 5+5+2. Splitting hairs. Only difference is the number of G5s. 

The G5 don't have any reasonable ability to win... And never will.

This...I don't agree with this. While everyone grumbles about conferences and whatnot, movement in college football has always been a big part of the sport. Lots of teams were the equivalent of G-5 teams but built their program and became quite good. The AAC is full of programs that are trying to be good at football, but are also artificially prevented from becoming better programs, mostly because of this imaginary line between P5 and G5 teams. But that line doesn't need to exist.


Also, the other part is what is the downside here? Some more wide scores? We already have plenty of those and one more ain't going to hurt anything. Conversely, making a random Sun Belt conference games something that matters and has national stakes? That's fun. That adds to the sport. I am pro making college football more fun.