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

why would not winning your conference merit a preferential seat?

I'm guessing most times, 2 or 3 of the conference champs are going to be in the top 4 anyway

Okay, let's say you have a year where the weak P12 champion is 10-3 Oregon, with an OOC loss and two conference losses but gets into the CCG based on a tiebreaker. They beat a 10-2 USC team (10-3 after CCG) on a down year.

Then you have the ACC. Blondie breaks his tibia mid-season and Clemson falls therein and one of the ACC detritus manages to snag the conference championship. 

Those teams get a reward. That reward is that they're in the CFP. Neither of them deserve to get a top-4 seed over an 11-1 Alabama team that steamrolled teams 11 weeks out of the year and narrowly lost to 13-0 LSU. 

Winning your conference deserves a reward. That reward is that no matter how mediocre you are, you get a CFP berth. It doesn't mean that you should get any preferential treatment beyond that.

Maybe in my example above, Oregon and the ACC champ are even knocked as far as being the 7th and 8th seeds behind an undefeated UCF at 6th. I'm fine with that. 

I've been arguing for years that P5 champs deserve CFP bids. I'm not pushing my luck and saying we should screw with tournament seeding to give them any special treatment after that. Many years the 1-4 seeds WILL be P5 champs. I don't think it needs to be a rule.

A G5 playoff team might well be a 15 point dog on average, we just took ten plus as the dividing line.  One of 8 is based on ten plus of course.

Then the other question surfaces, why even include them?

Mostly because CFB was too dumb to create an arbitrary line at some point. 

I think it would make sense to give them whatever the cut is now to go away and starting a G5 playoff. 

Okay, let's say you have a year where the weak P12 champion is 10-3 Oregon, with an OOC loss and two conference losses but gets into the CCG based on a tiebreaker. They beat a 10-2 USC team (10-3 after CCG) on a down year.

Then you have the ACC. Blondie breaks his tibia mid-season and Clemson falls therein and one of the ACC detritus manages to snag the conference championship.

Those teams get a reward. That reward is that they're in the CFP. Neither of them deserve to get a top-4 seed over an 11-1 Alabama team that steamrolled teams 11 weeks out of the year and narrowly lost to 13-0 LSU.

Winning your conference deserves a reward. That reward is that no matter how mediocre you are, you get a CFP berth. It doesn't mean that you should get any preferential treatment beyond that.

Maybe in my example above, Oregon and the ACC champ are even knocked as far as being the 7th and 8th seeds behind an undefeated UCF at 6th. I'm fine with that.

I've been arguing for years that P5 champs deserve CFP bids. I'm not pushing my luck and saying we should screw with tournament seeding to give them any special treatment after that. Many years the 1-4 seeds WILL be P5 champs. I don't think it needs to be a rule.

I'm advocating that we give HFA to the top-4 seeds in the 8-team playoff and we stipulate that the top-4 League Champions get the top-4 seeds.  That way there is a further reward for winning your conference provided that you aren't the fifth best league Champion.  My underlying goal here is to preserve the "every game matters" feeling as much as possible and I think this does because in a situation like last year's B1GCG where Ohio State was in either way they'd still be playing for HFA.  At 13-0 and B1G Champions they would obviously get a home game in round one.  At 12-1 and B1GCG losers they'd still be in but they'd be travelling to their first round game.  

So, two questions:

• What do you do with Notre Dame (or other worthy independents, should they exist). If Notre Dame goes 12-0 and just rips right through their schedule, are you going to stop them from getting HFA in the first round?
• What do you do if not only the fifth best league champ is substandard, but the fourth is as well?

In your scenario, a 12-1 OSU who lost the B1GCG might still be in the top 4 seeds over a team they lost to. Let's say that they lost in a fluke to 10-3 Purdue? Do you think even if the PAC12 champ is 9-4 Oregon, that 10-3 Purdue should be given HFA over 12-1 OSU?

Yes.  What I'm advocating is that HFA should be a reward for winning your conference.  If you aren't in a conference (your question #1) or you just have a bad day in your CG or whatever and you don't win your conference (your question #2) then you don't get HFA because it is a reward for winning your conference and you didn't.  

I'd tell Notre Dame:

• If you want HFA in a CFP game then you are going to have to join and win a conference.  Tough.  

I'd tell tOSU (in your example):

• You didn't win your conference.  Purdue and Oregon did win theirs, tough.  

Part of this, for me, is to create significant seeding advantages at every level possible.  

If you think about it, most years the #4 League Champion is going to be an underdog in the first-round CFP game even though they do get HFA because #5 is usually going to be a REALLY good team that didn't get HFA only because they either weren't in a conference or didn't win it based on some fluke or tiebreaker.  For example, over the six years of the CFP both 2015 Ohio State and 2017 Alabama were arguably the best team in the country that year but each lost a single game that caused them to tie for their Division Championship and lose the tie thus depriving them of a CCG appearance.  A lot of times the #4 league Champion is going to end up playing a team that that is loaded and mad.  Good luck!  

I think that is great.  The seeds:

• There is a humongous advantage to being #1 because your first round CFP game is going to be basically a tune-up against a G5 team at home.  
• It isn't as good as #1 but most years you are going to get the weakest P5 Champion.  A lot of times this is going to be some 9-4 team that happened to catch lightning in a bottle and pull off a CG upset.  
• This isn't as good as #2 but at least you duck the #5 seed which could be the best team in the Country.  
• This isn't good but at least you get HFA against Goliath.  
• This will almost always be the best non-Champion.  It isn't as good as #1 but still has advantages.  
• Avoiding the top-2 will frequently be important and at least this team doesn't have to play a road game against a top-2 team.  Granted, road games against #3 aren't a LOT easier, but they are easier.  
• Avoiding #1 will frequently be important and at least this team doesn't have to play a road game against #1.  
• This is a humongous advantage over #9 because #8 is in!  

IMHO, this would help to keep the games meaningful even after a team had "clinched".  Example, last year's B1GCG as it was:

• Wisconsin was 10-2 and playing only for pride.  As a practical matter they had no chance at the CFP even with a win so they were going to the Rose Bowl either way it was just a question of whether they were going as B1G Champs or not.  
• Ohio State was 12-0 and, as it turned out, playing for basically nothing.  As it turned out, had the Buckeyes lost they'd still have played Clemson in the Fiesta Bowl the only difference would have been that Clemson would have been wearing home jerseys.  

Last year's B1GCG with an 8-team CFP as I advocate:

• Wisconsin was 10-2 and would have been playing for not only a CFP spot but also a first-round home game.  At 10-3 with a loss they'd have been out but at 11-2 with a B1GCG they'd have been a top-4 league Champion and hosted a CFP game.  
• Ohio State would have been in either way but they'd have been playing for a home CFP game in round #1.  

Yes.  What I'm advocating is that HFA should be a reward for winning your conference.  

Fair 'nuff. I see where you're going, but still disagree.

I feel like a CFP berth is enough of a reward for your conference, and we don't need to kick it up. 

It sounds like you're more concerned about making this a punishment for great teams that fail to win their conference than necessarily a reward for those who do...

Fair 'nuff. I see where you're going, but still disagree.

I feel like a CFP berth is enough of a reward for your conference, and we don't need to kick it up.

It sounds like you're more concerned about making this a punishment for great teams that fail to win their conference than necessarily a reward for those who do...

I think the thing I am most trying to avoid is having "meaningless" games at the end of the season like we see in the NFL where teams that clinch early start resting their starters.  

Example:
Suppose that Florida and Alabama both went into the SECCG at 12-0.  If we had an 8-team playoff both would be locks for it regardless of who won the SECCG.  Additionally, if the top-4 seeds hosted first round games then both would *PROBABLY* be locks to host in the first round which basically makes the SECCG meaningless.  However, if you limit hosting to the top-4 league champions then you have a situation where:

• The SECCG winner gets a first round home tune-up game against some G5 pretender while
• The SECCG loser has to travel to Columbus, OH or Madison, WI or Eugene, OR or some such far-distant place to play a road game in cold weather against a formidable opponent.  

In that scenario the SECCG isn't meaningless.  Even if both Bama and Florida win their first round game there might still be a vast difference between one of them coasting through a home tune-up and the other getting beat up in a physical road game.  That has an impact on the second round.  

I think the thing I am most trying to avoid is having "meaningless" games at the end of the season like we see in the NFL where teams that clinch early start resting their starters. 

Example:
Suppose that Florida and Alabama both went into the SECCG at 12-0.  If we had an 8-team playoff both would be locks for it regardless of who won the SECCG.  Additionally, if the top-4 seeds hosted first round games then both would *PROBABLY* be locks to host in the first round which basically makes the SECCG meaningless.  However, if you limit hosting to the top-4 league champions then you have a situation where:

• The SECCG winner gets a first round home tune-up game against some G5 pretender while
• The SECCG loser has to travel to Columbus, OH or Madison, WI or Eugene, OR or some such far-distant place to play a road game in cold weather against a formidable opponent. 

In that scenario the SECCG isn't meaningless.  Even if both Bama and Florida win their first round game there might still be a vast difference between one of them coasting through a home tune-up and the other getting beat up in a physical road game.  That has an impact on the second round. 

That CCG winner is probably the 1 seed. That CCG loser is probably not the 2 seed. 

If the loss drops them down to the 3 or 4 seed, they still have a much more difficult opponent than that 1 seed has. There's still something to play for.