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

I like the idea of an 8 team playoff and just taking the top 6 conference champions, regardless of whether they are from a G5 or P5 conference, plus 2 at large teams.

 Usually that will mean 5 P5 champions and 1 G5 champion, but if there is a year where an 8-5 team wins a P5, they might not get picked over the AAC and MWC champions.

I like the idea of keeping the number of at large teams to a low number like 2 because i much prefer teams that deserve a shot over teams that may be better, but blew it.

The BCS had it right - 2 teams.  I'd like the computers back, using their best, original formulas (not the compromised bastard versions).  I want 50% human voters and 50% computers and to adhere to it without tweaks or knee-jerk reactions.

First off, 16 teams is a terrible idea. The more teams you allow in the more you are destroying what makes CFB great which is its regular season.

Secondly, everyone wants conference champion auto bids but the way these conferences decide champions is stupid.  Last year Ohio St had a better conference record than Wisconsin and beat term head to head.  Yet Wisconsin went to the CCG. Does that sound right to anyone?  Yeah, me either.

Oklahoma had the best conference record in a round robin format in the Big 12.  Yet they had to go beat TCU (again) to be declared the champion.  Does that make sense?

Auburn, Georgia, and Alabama all had 7-1 conference records and Auburn had wins over both of them but had to go play UGA again to be the champion.

USC had the best record in the PAC 12 and had already beat Stanford but had to beat them again to be declared champions.

It is entirely possible to go undefeated in your division yet not be the division champion and get to play in the CCG.  College football is different from other sports so let's quit trying to compare it to other sports.  It makes a little more sense for conference/division champions in other sports to get automatic bids because they all play each other, often multiple times. That isn't the case in college football. If one season the Yankees and Red Sox just didn't play each other would anyone feel as good about whoever the AL East champion was going to the playoffs?

So if these conferences can't apply common sense to determine their champs I don't mind if a committee of people get together and do it.  Yeah, it's subjective and has its flaws but I can live with them.  I like the idea of trying to reward sustained, season long consistency.  I like trying to pick the best even if it isn't entirely possible to do that.

Uhhh, then the XII needs to tell ESPN "tough crap" and add who they want.  And have a more valid CCG.  

It's never a wise thing to piss off your primary investor.

The XII gets something like $30Mil per member school (maybe more??), and I'm sure the TV guys are already wondering why they are paying $30Mil for some of the existing ones with little itty-bitty fan bases.

Then you're gonna throw Cincy and UCF at them too? 

Good luck at the next negotiating round.

I should point out that while I stated there is a dichotomy between "best teams" and "most deserving", I would point out that there's a different dichotomy sometimes at work here:

One group cares about the results and doesn't necessarily care about the process that gets there.

The other group cares about the process and if the process is sound, accepts whatever the results are. 

I fall into the second group. The group that says "show me what I need to accomplish". 

Is it going undefeated? Well, in the BCS era it wasn't, as there were several years where there were too many undefeated teams for the system to accommodate. 

Is it scheduling tough and winning your CCG, as the committee says is valued? Well, that's what OSU did and if they hadn't lost the tough game they scheduled [that Bama did not] they undoubtedly would have gotten in at 12-1 with a CCG even with the bad loss to Iowa. The committee would have said that the good win outweighs the bad loss, when Bama didn't have any opportunity at good OOC wins. Still, OSU had two top-10 wins while Bama had none, and 3 ranked wins to Bama's 2. 

Why do I take it personally? Because I'm not a fan of a helmet school. Purdue will *never* get selected for the CFP unless they go 13-0 with a B1G championship game win. If they get into the championship game at 11-1 and finish 12-1, they will *always* be the odd man out unless there are no other helmets that are close. I honestly believe that if Bama finished with an SEC championship at 11-2, they'd be selected over a team like Purdue in a heartbeat. They'll find a rationale to exclude a non-helmet any time they can possibly justify it. Heck, Wisconsin is a quasi-helmet but an 12-1 B1G Champion Wisconsin (with their schedule) could very easily have been passed over for Alabama based on strength of schedule, which the committee would actually care about when it suits them.

I see huge flaws in the process, to the point where I know the process is a joke and the system is meant to reward helmet. I'd rather have a fair process even if it means some year that Iowa goes 10-3 with an OOC loss, two conference losses (but winning the tiebreaker to make the CCG and winning it) and gets into the playoff as the B1G champion. I value process over results. I'm an engineer, after all 

Maybe right now, but there is no test as to what happens when a certain King decides to hang 'em up.