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

FWIW, the CFP quarterfinal match-ups from 2014-2018 in the above model that @bwarbiany and I laid out would have been:
2014:

• #1 SEC Champion Bama vs #8 MWC Champion Boise State at Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• #4 B1G Champion tOSU vs #5 B12 Champion Baylor at Columbus, Ohio 
• #2 PAC Champion Oregon vs #7 MissSt at Eugene, Oregon
• #3 ACC Champion FSU vs #6 TCU at Tallahassee, Florida

2015:

• #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion Houston at Clemson, South Carolina
• #4 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #5 Iowa at Norman, Oklahoma
• #2 SEC Champion Bama vs #7 tOSU at Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• #3 B1G Champion MSU vs #6 PAC Champion Stanford at East Lansing, Michigan

2016*:

• #1 SEC Champion Bama vs #8 Western Michigan at Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• #4 B1G Champion Penn State vs #5 tOSU at State College, Pennsylvania
• #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma at Clemson, South Carolina
• #3 PAC Champion Washington vs #6 Michigan at Seattle, Washington

2017:

• #1 ACC Champion Clemson vs #8 AAC Champion UCF
• #4 B1G Champion tOSU vs #5 Bama at Columbus, Ohio
• #2 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #7 Auburn at Norman, Oklahoma
• #3 SEC Champion Georgia vs #6 Wisconsin at Athens, Georgia

2018:

• #1 SEC Champion Bama vs #8 PAC Champion Washington at Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• #4 B1G Champion tOSU vs #5 Notre Dame at Columbus, Ohio
• #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #7 AAC Champion UCF at Clemson, South Carolina
• #3 B12 Champion Oklahoma vs #6 Georgia at Norman, Oklahoma

*I would consider a rule to either avoid rematches altogether in the first round or at least to avoid in-conference ramatches in the first round but either would be tricky in this case.  The #4 seed, Penn State already played and is in the same Conference and Division as both #5 Ohio State and #6 Michigan.  If you had a rule to avoid such rematches the games would instead be:
2016 (with no rematches):

• #1 SEC Champion Bama vs #8 Western Michigan at Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• #4 B1G Champion Penn State vs #7 B12 Champion Oklahoma at State College, Pennsylvania
• #2 ACC Champion Clemson vs #6 Michigan at Clemson, South Carolina
• #3 PAC Champion Washington vs #5 tOSU at Seattle, Washington

Too many games become almost completely irrelevant:  For tOSU this year, they could lose all three OOC games and one of their three cross-over games and they would still control their own destiny to win the NC.  I just don't like that. 

Or, it might actually result in teams scheduling more difficult OOC games. If you know you can lose that OOC game but winning your conference gets you in, you are more willing to schedule them. Conversely, you know that winning those OOC games improves your SoS and if somehow you miss out on your CCG as an 11-1 team, that SoS helps you GREATLY towards getting an at-large bid. 

I think we will ultimately go to that model and I'd suggest that the top-4 CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS get to host the first round.  That would help address the complaints of those who thought it was ridiculous that tOSU and Bama got in without winning their conference because under this rule teams like that at least would be forced to play their opener in a hostile environment.  


I think one thing delaying implementation of this model is that there isn't a good answer to the question of what to do with the first-round CFP losers during bowl week.  I'm assuming here that the new on-campus first round games would be two weeks after the CCG's hosted by the top-4 conference champions.

I like the idea of the top conference champions hosting the first round. I think that adds additional value and makes the conference championships important.

That said, I don't think there is an issue with those other teams missing bowls. Essentially if you play them 2 weeks after the CCG, this year that puts you on Saturday Dec 21st. That is basically the start of bowl season anyway. Right now we have two bowls played on Fri Dec 20, and five on Sat Dec 21. Yes, they're not "premier" bowls, but I don't think it makes any sense to do anything additional for playoff losers. 

That said, I don't think there is an issue with those other teams missing bowls. Essentially if you play them 2 weeks after the CCG, this year that puts you on Saturday Dec 21st. That is basically the start of bowl season anyway. Right now we have two bowls played on Fri Dec 20, and five on Sat Dec 21. Yes, they're not "premier" bowls, but I don't think it makes any sense to do anything additional for playoff losers.

I kind-of agree and that is probably what they will do, but I still think it sucks that four of the best teams in the country get completely left out of the premier bowls.  

Yeah, my goal (heh) is to win the conference.  Anything after that is somewhat luck.  A conference championship is a real thing.

Yep, win the Big Ten conference and get a bid to the Rose Bowl, to play the winner of the PAC.


Sounds good to me.

Hey, I'm fine with that. I'm not the one saying we need some sort of "national champion". I'd be fine with going back to the pre-BCS days. 

I'm just saying if you're going to have one, at least put in the effort to have a good process to figure out who it is. 

I think the process is good

it's just that the Committee is full of crap about what's important

they say conference championships really matter, but then they vote otherwise

I'm not going to say that you're arguing this from the perspective of an Alabama fan (will always get the benefit of the doubt), but I can state that I'm absolutely arguing this as a Purdue fan that will NEVER get the benefit of the doubt.

The year that Purdue goes 12-1 (winning the CCG) to win the Big Ten will be the year that the ACC, SEC, B12, PAC will all have 1-loss conference champions and I know that Purdue will ALWAYS be the odd man out in that scenario, unless Boston College and Washington State are the teams winning the ACC/P12. And even then it's dicey.

So for me, part of it is that I want the conference championship to be the FIRST goal of every team. This makes that the first goal. Getting a conference championship, no matter HOW you get it, automatically puts you into the next step.

Conference championships would now be primarily relevant, where they really aren't any longer in the CFP. In the CFP a conference championship is an important data point, but going 11-1 and missing your CCG is potentially a better route to the CFP than going 12-1 with a CCG loss.

i can agree and understand that point of view. it's not beyond me that i'm a fan of a privileged team (mostly earned) and that they'll get benefits most others won't. i try to disregard that fandom and bias i inherently have, and feel i mostly do a good job at that, but i also know it's impossible for that to be completely removed.

i also like to reiterate that i proposed a plan (albeit not completely thought out, so could have flaws) that i think would give both of us what we wanted.

i'm also for the conference title being primary goal #1 for the season. it's 100% in your control for every team from day one, and should stay that way.

for the cfp, with the 4 team we currently have, i'm not sure how you can guarantee any team/conf anything. there aren't enough spots for guarantees. just a "do your best and see if it works out". 

for the 6-8 we'll likely be going to soon, this could work.

you get an auto bid if you win your conference (p5 confs) and are in top 10. i'd feel pretty confident that any p5 conf team with an 12-1 record and conf champ would be top 10, including purdue.