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

I may have missed it, but has anyone here advocating for a 6+1+1 eight-team playoff included a no-rematch caveat for the 1 at-large team? 
Say Wisconsin is in line to be the at-large team, but they’ve already lost to who they’d face in the playoff, so they’d be passed over.  Would most of you want that?
Or even extend it to the at-large can’t have a loss to any playoff team?
Thoughts?

No. That defeats the purpose of at-large.

Often the at-large team will have one slip-up, and that slip-up might be, for example, a very tight road game against an 11-1 division rival (with a worse loss) who made it to the CCG while they stayed home at 11-1. The conference rival wins the CCG to get to 12-1 and the auto-bid, but the committee thinks that on a neutral field, that 11-1 team that they beat might just be the better team and is certainly worthy of an at-large bid. 

Heck, imagine LSU takes an OOC loss against a respectable team, a head-scratching loss to Ole Miss, but they beat Bama by a walkoff FG after a Bama player extends that drive on a 4th down stop by, say, throwing an opponent's shoe. Both teams finish with 7-1 conference records but LSU is 10-2 and Bama is 11-1. LSU goes to the CCG and wins it. 

Is the SEC going to be happy having Bama excluded because they might potentially face LSU, a team that almost everyone in the country thinks they're better than?

nope, I still prefer the 2-team playoff

I was asking the 6+1 at-large + 1 G5 champ advocates.

I just thought 2011 was the impetus for all of this. 
You're going to tell LSU it has to beat Alabama again?  Is that any more fair? 

It's one thing when you have 5 power conferences comprising >60 teams, most of whom rarely play each other, and your SINGLE championship game is a rematch between two teams from the same conference. That year, even if Bama was a better team than OkSU, I think the collective opinion of everyone outside SEC territory was that the "fair" option in a 2-team playoff was to let someone else have a crack at LSU. 

In an 8-team playoff, I think we understand that rematches might be inevitable. I would suggest that the committee should do what it can with seeding to avoid rematches or even games between two teams from the same conference in the quarterfinals, but that might not even be possible some years (or may screw up the seeding too badly). 

So yeah, 2011 was the impetus, but not purely out of an "avoid rematches" mindset--it was "if we can only put two teams in, THEN we should avoid rematches".

It's one thing when you have 5 power conferences comprising >60 teams, most of whom rarely play each other, and your SINGLE championship game is a rematch between two teams from the same conference. That year, even if Bama was a better team than OkSU, I think the collective opinion of everyone outside SEC territory was that the "fair" option in a 2-team playoff was to let someone else have a crack at LSU.

In an 8-team playoff, I think we understand that rematches might be inevitable. I would suggest that the committee should do what it can with seeding to avoid rematches or even games between two teams from the same conference in the quarterfinals, but that might not even be possible some years (or may screw up the seeding too badly).

So yeah, 2011 was the impetus, but not purely out of an "avoid rematches" mindset--it was "if we can only put two teams in, THEN we should avoid rematches".

Hmm.
Do you think there'd be a rule against both at-larges coming from the same conference?

I love doing scenarios with 2012, because the rankings are SEC-heavy, you have ND at the top, undefeated OSU on probation, and the PAC champ ranked below a team in its division. 
2012 8-team playoff (5 conf champs, 2 at-large, 1 G5)
.
SEC Champ - Alabama (2)
ACC Champ - Florida St (13)
B1G Champ - Wisconsin (UR)
XII Champ - Kansas St (7)
PAC Champ - Stanford (8)
Highest G5 - Northern Illinois (16)
-----------------------------------------
So before we add in the 2 at-large teams, in our 8-team playoff, we don't yet have #1, 3, 4, 5, or 6.  We have #16.  We have an unranked team.  Absolutely, this is a unique season, but look at it.  We'd have created a system like this, with these results, ON PURPOSE.
Obviously, our first at-large is #1 Notre Dame.  Cool.
Now for the other:
3 - n/a Ohio St (probation)
4 - Florida (didn't win its division)
5 - Oregon (didn't win its division)
6 - Georgia (won its division, but dropped from 3 to 6 for losing to Alabama in the SECCG)
Now, the purpose of this isn't to nitpick the 2nd at-large team, but to see where it's at among the other automatic bids.
No matter who is chosen here, they're the 3 seed.
1 seed ND (1) vs 8 seed Wis (UR)
4 seed K-State (7) vs 5 seed Stanford (8)
2 seed Alabama (2) vs 7 seed NIU (16)
3 seed Florida? (4) vs 6 seed FSU (13)
.
The matchups are fine, that's not my focus.  We want? a system that excludes what may be the 4th, 5th, and 6th-best teams for ones that may be the 13th, 16th, and 26th+ (the 4-5-6 if you just pretend OSU isn't there).
I'm not okay with that.  Maybe if like they did with the BCS, if you had a lower-bound ranking for conference champs, I could get on board, at least for the P5 teams.
Whether it's 12th or 15th or whatever, we need a minimum ranking, don't we? 

.

You can insist on it, or anything else, if you wish.

It's all theoretical, using the term loosely.  Perhaps hypothetical is better.

When discussing such a thing, I personally start with either a problem definition, or a goal, kind of the same thing really.

. How often do we really have an unranked P5 champ, ESPECIALLY now in the days of the CCG?

This is a good thought, especially that mathematically, the CCG should yield some upsets - certainly more than have actually happened.

I don't think you can avoid the beauty-pageant aspect, though.  If a team is ranked 2nd and loses its CCG, it could very well still get in.  Another team with the same record could be ranked 6th and a loss in their CCG is damning.

Hell, any conference with the #1 team facing another in the top 10 in their CCG should have the top team forfeit in order to guarantee 2 of theirs gets in the playoff.  I know, I know, that's silly, OAM.  Would never happen.  But it's another case of incentivising something ugly.