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

First, the 60's are a difficult time to analyze because from 1962-1967 the AP Poll (one of my favorite metrics normally) only included 10 teams. 

It is interesting to me that you considered Michigan elite starting circa 1967 because at that time and leading up to it:
1967:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-6
1966:  Michigan was ranked 9th and 8th respectively in the first two polls then lost three straight and never got back, finishing 6-4
1965:  Michigan was ranked 4th, 4th, and 7th in the first three polls then lost four straight and never got back, finishing 4-6
1964:  Michigan was unranked in the preseason and again in one poll (immediately after their loss to PU) but other than that they were ranked all year finishing 9-1 and #4 with a RB win over Oregon State
1963:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 3-4-2
1962:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 2-7
1961:  Michigan was ranked in a couple early polls and received votes in the final (pre-bowl) poll.  They finished 6-3
1960:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 5-4
1959:  Michigan was not ranked in any AP Poll and finished 4-5
1958:  Michigan was ranked (barely, high-teens) in three early polls but finished 2-6-1

So in the decade prior to when you were first aware of the national picture, Michigan had been nationally relevant once.  If you go back even further, Michigan's RB winning 9-1/#4 season in 1964 was their only season with less than two losses between their undefeated season in 1948 and Bo's second year of 1970.  Ie, from 1949-1969 Michigan was nationally relevant in one out of 21 years. 

It is interesting that Michigan's improvement actually started in 1968 (Bump Elliott's last year).  In 1968 Michigan was ranked almost all year peaking at #4 in the 11/11 and 11/18 polls before getting drilled 50-14 by #2 Ohio State on 11/23.  Still, they finished 8-2 and #12. 

In 1969 the Wolverines were:

• Unranked preseason*
• got into the Poll after a couple early wins (Vandy, Washington)
• fell back out after a bad home loss to #9 Mizzou
• got back in after a win over #9 Purdue on 10/11
• fell back out after a loss to unranked MSU on 10/18
• got back in and climbed to #12 with wins over MN, UW, IL, and IA (all finished .500 or worse)
• jumped to #7 with a win over #1 Ohio State
• lost the RB and finished 8-3 and #9

Then Michigan became almost super-elite.  From 1970-2007 they were:

• #1 in AP Poll appearances with 560 (91.7% out of 611). 
• #2 in AP top-10 appearances with 356 (58.3% out of 611). 
• #3 in AP top-5 appearances with 207 (33.9% out of 611). 

So for the 38 seasons from 1970-2007 the Wolverines were ranked in about 9-out-of-10 polls, top-10 in about 3-out-of-5 polls, and top-5 in about 1-out-of-three polls. 

Comparison, from 1949-1967 they were:

• #13 in AP Poll appearances with 82 (36.8% out of 223)
• #16 (tied with UMD) in AP top-10 appearances with 51 (22.9% of 223)
• #17 (tied with Ark and ILL) in AP top-5 appearances with 24 (10.8% out of 223)

Those figures from 1949-1967 show how "not elite" they were. 

*Above I noted that the Wolverines were unranked to start the 1969 season.  I think this demonstrates that they were NOT really a helmet at that time.  They got as high as #4 in 1968 and finished #12.  Helmet teams that get as high as #4 and finish #12 ALWAYS start the next season ranked.  Michigan didn't because they weren't. 

reminds me of many debates with Michigan fans back during the 97 season and the post season regarding perception vs Nebraska using AP poll stats
those were the good ol daze

I think the point is that the CFP devalues winning the B1G and going and winning against the PAC champion in the Rose Bowl if you're a team with legitimate CFP aspirations.

I.e. if you're Ohio State, and you go 12-1 to win the B1G but you are excluded from the CFP was a woodshedding loss to lowly PURDUE of all teams, and then you go win the Rose Bowl against PAC-champion Washington... It somehow feels like a letdown.

For us lowly mortal programs that will probably never even sniff the CFP, 8-5 with a bowl win is a nice season. For someone like Ohio State, 13-1 but missing the CFP is a letdown.

This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.

This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.

but, you're old

This is my main criticism of the CFP, that it makes winning it the be-all and end-all.
I'd rather we went back to bowls and polls and then argued about the polls in the off-season.

Agree with you here.  It's a case of be careful what you ask for.  College football has lost a lot of it's tradition and uniqueness in it's quest for a "one true title".

I think it would please the most people if we went back pre-bowl coalition and had an optional +1 game if there were 2 remaining undefeated, P5 teams.

I don't know why the "if necessary" idea never gained any traction.  In '02, you don't need it, in '03, you do.  How hard is that?

And I think the sport benefited from having 6-8 strong independent teams.  

For a helmet, what is better? 

Making the CFP but losing there, or missing the CFP but winning a NY6 bowl? 

I was pretty sure I wouldn't like the "playoff"

I was right

I actually like the current system, I think I'm pretty unusual (huh).  I think most fans want to go to 8 teams, or more.