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

that's always the motivation

basketball is now more than 64

players and coaching staffs don't want more games, they influence ADs, which talk to the conference commish

it's the only reason the NFL doesn't play 24 games in a season

well, that sucks

If the motivation is simply more revenue, then why not 16 or 32 or 64?

I keep thinking that eventually the powers that be will figure out that while adding to the playoff pool obviously increases playoff revenue it decreases regular season revenue because it converts regular season CFB games which most fans view as "can't miss, must see" events into something more like regular season CBB games which are more of a "if I am not too busy" viewing item.  

Back to @CWSooner 's original question:

For me, as a fan of Ohio State, I have zero interest in a 10-year OOC series for two reasons:

First, I really like playing a variety of OOC opponents.  If we locked in with one for a decade we'd lose that variety.  I'd rather play five "helmet" teams twice each than one 10 times.  

Second, there really aren't any good "natural" OOC rivalries for Ohio State.  Some people suggest Cincy but they are nowhere near on Ohio State's level.  If I were tOSU's AD I'd be willing to sign them so something like a 3-and-1 where we play three times in Columbus and once in Cincinnati.  Even there, I'm not really willing to give them a home game, I'd demand that the Cincy game be played at Paul Brown and that tOSU get half of the tickets.  

Most of the border-state teams are in the B1G (Michigan, PSU).  There are three potential logical annual OOC rivals for Ohio State:

• Notre Dame:  They are in a border state and they are a fellow "helmet" so it would make some sense.  That said, I wouldn't want to support ND's continued quasi non-conference stance by playing them annually and even if I didn't care about that, as I referenced above, I'd rather see the Buckeyes travel to Norman, Austin, Tuscaloosa, Athens, and LA in a ten year period than see them travel to South Bend five times.  
• West Virginia:  They are P5 (B12 now oddly).  However, they are nowhere near the "Helmet" that Ohio State is.  
• Kentucky:  They are P5 (SEC).  However, like WVU, they are nowhere near the "Helmet" that Ohio State is.  

what, G5 teams don't play defense?

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?

I already know @OrangeAfroMan 's answer and to an extent I agree with him.  

His answer will be that any playoff should necessarily consist of the Best _ teams where the _ is replaced by the number of teams.  I get it and I don't totally disagree.  

That said, there are also people who will argue for the "most deserving" as opposed to "best" and there is a strong case for that as well.  One argument that I've heard a lot is that if you aren't the best team in your conference then you can't be the best team in the country.  Same there, I get that argument but I also get that with unbalanced league schedules and HFA the "best" team doesn't always win the conference.  

Going to eight teams with auto-bids for the five P5 Champs and the highest ranked G5 Champ is a hybrid/compromise between "best" and "most deserving".  There are two at-large spots so if Bama loses to Auburn on a weird kick-six they still have a chance (same if Ohio State loses to PSU or MSU).  I would give the HFA to the top-4 league champions so that there was a not insignificant advantage to winning your league.  

More specifically, why include the top G5 Champ when, as I just argued above, they are probably cannon-fodder for the #1 seed.  The major reason is political/legal.  The G5 teams consist of a LOT of schools in a LOT of states and Congress threatened the BCS due to non-inclusion of the G5 teams.  There was potential for a monopoly lawsuit or Congressional intervention.  Throwing the G5 a bone by letting their best team get pasted by the #1 seed every year is better than losing in Court or having Congress after you.  

Another reason is simply to reward the #1 seed.  Hey, if you go undefeated you probably get what is basically a bye in the first round of the CFP.  

I'm not a huge fan of the expanded playoff nor of expanding it again to eight teams but I really like the set-up that I have proposed for the inevitable expansion to eight teams.  For quick review, my proposal is:

• An eight team CFP.  
• The 5 P5 Champs and the highest ranked G5 Champ get auto-bids leaving two at-large slots.  
• The top-4 league champions get the top-4 seeds and host the first round.  
• I'm undecided on a rule to either avoid rematches or to avoid two teams from the same conference (or both) in the first round*.  

Things I like about it:

• It preserves as much value in the regular season as possible because there is a HUMONGOUS difference between squeaking in at #7 and being the #1 seed.  Ie, the #7 seed has to travel to one of the best teams in the country while #1 hosts a glorified scrimmage.  
• Even beyond 1 v 7, there is a significant difference between almost each step.  #1 gets the glorified scrimmage.  #2 usually gets the weakest P5 Champ.  #3 gets either the second weakest P5 Champ or a weaker at-large.  #4 is usually going to get an at-large team that most people think is better than they are.  
• Winning your conference matters.  Last year's B1GCG is a great example.  In retrospect Ohio State was playing only for jersey color in the 2/3 game.  Had Ohio State lost to Wisconsin they would still have played Clemson in the first round.  Ie, the B1GCG was for basically nothing.  In this proposal Ohio State would have been playing for a relatively easy home game (against Baylor based on 2019 results) instead of a MUCH tougher road game (at Oklahoma based on 2019 results).  Plus, Wisconsin would have had something to play for as well.  With a loss the Badgers would have obviously been out as a 10-3 non-Champion but with a win they'd have had an auto-bid as an 11-2 B1G Champion and they'd have hosted a first round game.  Based on 2019 results the fourth host spot would have been between 11-2 Wisconsin and 11-2 Oregon.  
• Lots and LOTS of games in the final weeks matter.  All five P5 CG's obviously matter because even in a situation like the B1G, SEC, or ACC in 2019 where tOSU/LSU/Clemson are in either way, the other team is still playing for a spot and tOSU/LSU/Clemson are playing for a first-round home game.  Then, a slew of G5 CG's are potentially relevant.  In 2019 it would have been pretty much just the AAC game with the winner getting the #8 slot but in other years there would be situations where two, three, four, or all five G5 CG's are potentially relevant.  Ie, the 5th highest ranked G5 CG participant needs to win and have all four underdogs win the other G5 CG's.  It isn't much of a chance but it is a chance.  

*I'm curious what others think about a no-rematch or no two teams from the same conference rule for first round games.  If you look at 2019, had Wisconsin upset Ohio State in the B1GCG they would have entered the CFP as the fourth highest ranked P5 Champion behind LSU, Clemson, and Oklahoma.  Thus, they would have hosted the #5 seed which would likely have been the same Ohio State team that they already lost to in Columbus and beat in Indianapolis.  It seems ridiculous to me to have tOSU/UW play a third time.  OTOH, it is somewhat unfair to #3 Oklahoma to say "well, you are supposed to host the #6 seed Oregon Ducks where you'll be a favorite but instead you get to host the Buckeyes and be an underdog.  

Your thoughts?

• Would you prohibit first-round rematches?   
• Would you prohibit first-round games between two teams from the same league (even if they didn't play in the Regular Season)?  
• Would you prohibit first-round rematches between teams from the same conference?