Of course they're not equal. That's why the idea is a 5+1+2 or a 6+2 model.
In 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2020 a P5 non-champ was selected over P5 champs. There are arguments for why that is the case, in that it was Notre Dame (who gets undeserved treatment because of that shiny gold helmet) twice, but for the most part it was simple "count the number of losses" accounting.
Of all those seasons, the worst P5 champ, by record, was 10-3 Washington. All three of their losses were road games (technically Auburn was neutral, but Washington traveled from Seattle to Atlanta, and Auburn traveled from... Auburn to Atlanta), and two of those were to ranked teams at the time. All three losses were one-score games, by a combined 10 points, with one being a loss in OT. The worst by ranking was 2020 Oregon at 25th (4-2 record), so if you had a 6+2 system they'd have been replaced in the playoff by #12 undefeated Coastal Carolina.
Would it be THAT bad to give every P5 champ an auto-bid?
Then you've got the G5 champ... In 4 of those years, the top G5 champ was undefeated. In two others, the top G5 champ was a 1-loss team in the top 20, and the worst (by record) was a 2-loss Boise State team ranked 20th.
Would it be THAT bad to give the top G5 champ an auto-bid?
Finally, there's an argument that you'd be leaving deserving teams out by allowing undeserving conference champs in. Well, in 7 years of the CFP, we've never had more than one team that was a P5 non-champ selected to the top 4. Now I'm giving you 2 slots for at-large. You can't make the argument at ALL that deserving teams will be left out at a higher rate than the current system.
It satisfies everyone. Conference championships are meaningful. The G5 gets one seat at the table. The "best teams" are not left out because you have two at-large spots.
But I'm just CRAZY for suggesting this, huh? Because the entire idea of a college football championship is a farce if we let Cincy in this year.
As you know, I've been a proponent of 5+1+2 (five P5 Champs, top G5 Champ, two at-large) for a long time. I'd actually prefer to stay at four but I just assume that expansion is inevitable and I've long believed that if we expand beyond four the best possible alternative is that.
I don't want all the tallest midgets because frankly some of them are REALLY short. I've listed the example of 2019 MAC Champion Miami, OH several times in these discussions. They went 6-2 in the MAC with multiple close wins and two losses by 14 and 24 points. The MAC was terrible that year as evidenced by Miami's OOC run which included:
- a 22 point loss to Cincy (which was runner-up in the AAC)
- a 24 point loss to Iowa (finished third in the B1G-W)
- a 71 point loss to Ohio State (won the B1G)
Miami then beat MAC-W Champion Directional Michigan in the MAC CG. It would be lubricous to deprive legitimately good teams of a playoff spot in order to gift that spot to a terrible team like 2019 Miami, OH. We do it in CBB and I don't like it there either but at least there we are taking 68 teams so the vastly superior teams deprived of a spot to make room for tallest midgets are themselves not all that good. Also, the best teams left out of the NCAA Tournament have no realistic prayer of winning it anyway. With a four, eight, or even 12 team CFP the teams deprived would be legitimately good teams that might plausibly win the NC.
OTOH, I'm ok with including the best G5 Champion. Realistically this is simply going to be the tallest of the tallest midgets but it is only one spot and the tallest of the tallest midgets isn't likely to ever be as bad as 2019 Miami.
Two at-large spots is enough that when a team ties for their division Championship but loses the H2H tiebreaker due to a close loss frequently on the road, the team that barely misses their CG still has a path.
This would also generate a lot of cross-regional interest because various fanbases would have differing rooting interests in different games. Examples:
- Suppose that the B1G-E Champion is an 11-1 team (likely) and that the B1G-W team is a 9-3 team (also likely). If your non-B1G team was in line for a possible top seed you would be rooting for the B1G-W Champion in order to clear the B1G-E Champion out of the contention for the top seeds. Conversely, if your team was in line for a possible at-large bid you would be rooting for the B1G-E Champion because in the event that they lost they might simply drop down to your teams' at-large spot.
- The G5 race could get REALLY interesting. This year, for example, the top G5's are #5 Cincy from the AAC, #19 SDSU from the MWC, #22 UTSA from CUSA, and #24 Houston from the AAC. So Cincy fans would simply root for their team. SDSU fans would root for their team against UtahSt and for Houston to knock off Cincy. UTSA fans would root for their team against WKY, Houston to knock off Cincy, and UtahSt to knock off SDSU. Houston fans would root for their team against Cincy, UtahSt to knock off SDSU, and WKY to knock off UTSA.
Two additional caveats to my 5+1+2 proposal:
- The four highest ranked Conference Champions would host the first round. This is mostly to keep CG's between teams like Bama and Georgia meaningful. As it is, Bama is likely to make it as an 11-2 non-Champion with a four-team field and they'd be an obvious lock with an eight-team field so the SECCG between them and Georgia would feel like an exhibition game. I'd avoid that by making the SECCG loser travel to their first-round opponent while the SECCG winner got to sit home and feast on the tallest of the tallest midgets.
- Second-round pairings would be based on rankings with the highest remaining seed getting location preference. Ie, the highest ranked remaining team would get the lowest ranked remaining team and the two middle remaining teams would play each other. This is to avoid a situation where otherwise you could have a second round game between #1 Bama and #2 Georgia. That makes no sense. If Bama beats Georgia in the SECCG and gets the #1 seed then they get the weakest available team in the second round as well. If #2 Georgia survives their road-trip to the #4 Conference Champion, they get the second-lowest remaining team in round #2.
Using this year as an example, assume the following:
- Georgia wins their last two games then loses the SECCG and finishes #2.
- Bama wins out and finishes #1.
- Oregon wins out and finishes #3.
- Ohio State wins out and finishes #4.
- Cincinnati wins out and finishes #5.
- Notre Dame wins out and finishes #6.
- Oklahoma State wins out and finishes #7.
- Wake Forest wins out and finishes #8.
The first round games would be:
- #8 Wake at #1 Bama
- #7 OkSU at #3 Oregon
- #6 ND at #4 Ohio State
- #2 UGA at #5 Cincinnati
Those are some great games in some phenomenal atmospheres!
The two semi-final locations this year are the Cotton Bowl in Dallas and the Orange Bowl in Miami. The highest ranked remaining team after the first round games would get preferential location and play the lowest ranked remaining team while the other two teams played in the other location.
All of that said, THIS YEAR is a completely different animal. Cincinnati simply isn't very good. They haven't even managed to consistently dominate their crappy G5 opponents. They shouldn't be gifted a spot a the expense of a legitimately great 2-loss SEC or B1G team.
