Take it a step further.


NYD Quarterfinals
ORANGE 11est
COTTON 230est
ROSE 6est
SUGAR 930est

Semifinal Saturday
PEACH 12est
NFL 330est
NFL 7est
FIESTA 1030est


National Championship Game even has the option of having Saturday all to itself - the day before the NFC & AFC title games.

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

(12-13-2019 11:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Four bowls for quarterfinals

Two for semis

Then one title.

NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.

Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.

sorry but they aren't going there. It will be absolutely seeded. Big Ten/Pac 12 aren't getting a possible advantage at all. SEC won't stand for it(and neither would ACC or Big 12). I mean this year if you had that dumb ass idea-
Sugar #1 LSU vs #4 Oklahoma
Rose #2 Ohio St vs #6 Oregon
Orange #3 Clemson vs Memphis
??? #5 Georgia vs #7 Baylor

why in the hell would Georgia and Baylor get that? Why would #3 have a much easier game than #1 or #2? That's just stupid.

Tradition is done with in determining the national championship. Period the end.

Rose Bowl is the only game that you would see any effort to get the B1G-PAC champion matchup. Scrap the SEC-B12 Sugar Bowl matchup, but make sure that either the SEC or B12 hosts that game. Same with the ACC and the Orange Bowl. The Cotton Bowl is more than acceptable as an alternative for the B12 or SEC champ...and the Peach Bowl is an acceptable alternative for the SEC or ACC champ.

It wouldn't be that big of a deal, unless both the B1G and PAC champs are both ranked in the top 4.

For this year specifically, it would look like this:

Sugar Bowl: #1 LSU v. #8 Memphis
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State v. #6 Oregon
Orange Bowl: #3 Clemson v. #7 Baylor
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma v. #5 Georgia

If instead Oregon were ranked #4, slide them into the Cotton Bowl and move Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl.

This year, not a huge difference between Oregon and Baylor, and especially not to disrupt a perfectly fine B1G-PAC matchup for the Rose Bowl.

I could see it only as long as there was also a same provision that if both the Big Ten and Pac 12 were not top 4, the Rose match up was scrubbed as well.... And I don't see that happening.

(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Four bowls for quarterfinals

Two for semis

Then one title.

NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.

Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.

Sounds right to me. The two bowls who aren’t quarterfinals can still host a bowl around New Year’s and then serve as semi final sites 7-10 days later.

Bid the title game out to cities across the country

(12-13-2019 01:02 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Take it a step further.


NYD Quarterfinals
ORANGE 11est
COTTON 230est
ROSE 6est
SUGAR 930est

Semifinal Saturday
PEACH 12est
NFL 330est
NFL 7est
FIESTA 1030est


National Championship Game even has the option of having Saturday all to itself - the day before the NFC & AFC title games.

The quarterfinals can be split among the last Sat in Dec/NYD.

Play the semi finals on week nights (Mon & Tues)

Final gets played the Saturday of the Pro Bowl.

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

In this scenario, a P5 school would only have to be better than 9-13 teams in their conference. A G5 schools would have to be better than 70 other programs.

So how is it easier for a G5 than a school in a P5? Here's another thought: if you think your conference is too tough you can always join another one if you think it is an easier path.

(12-13-2019 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Four bowls for quarterfinals

Two for semis

Then one title.

NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.

Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.

sorry but they aren't going there. It will be absolutely seeded. Big Ten/Pac 12 aren't getting a possible advantage at all. SEC won't stand for it(and neither would ACC or Big 12). I mean this year if you had that dumb ass idea-
Sugar #1 LSU vs #4 Oklahoma
Rose #2 Ohio St vs #6 Oregon
Orange #3 Clemson vs Memphis
??? #5 Georgia vs #7 Baylor

why in the hell would Georgia and Baylor get that? Why would #3 have a much easier game than #1 or #2? That's just stupid.

Tradition is done with in determining the national championship. Period the end.

Stever is absolutely right—no need to tweak the seeding.

The top 4 get to pick their quarterfinal bowls in order from 1st to 4th. If this year the semi final sites are the Peach and Fiesta then:

Sugar: 1 LSU vs 8* Memphis
Rose: 2 Ohio St vs 7 Baylor
Orange: 3 Clemson vs 6 Oregon
Cotton: 4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia

Peach: 8 Wisconsin vs 9 Florida
Fiesta: 10 Penn St vs 11 Utah

7-10 days after the quarterfinals get played Glendale and Atlanta host semi-finals with the highest remaining seed getting 1st pick of site.

(12-13-2019 10:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years

I’d include the ACC in that group. If it wasn’t for Clemson, the ACC wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Long term, it’d benefit the ACC more than the Big XII and Pac-12 if the CFP expands to 8.

(12-13-2019 03:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years

I’d include the ACC in that group. If it wasn’t for Clemson, the ACC wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Long term, it’d benefit the ACC more than the Big XII and Pac-12 if the CFP expands to 8.

BS. Kick the ACC while they’re down, but FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech are all historically strong programs. Toss in Georgia Tech, UNC, Pitt, and Louisville and I don’t see how anyone can say it isn’t a P5 conference.

Hell, VaTech has Alabama and South Carolina coming to their stadium in the future. Don’t see that happening to the G5.

Clemson was OK in the 90’s and 2000’s, now that they’re playing elite let’s not forget the past.

(12-13-2019 11:51 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 09:58 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Four bowls for quarterfinals

Two for semis

Then one title.

NY6 bowls rotate among quarters and semis and bid the title game out.

Try to pair historical host bowls like the Rose with partner leagues where possible.

sorry but they aren't going there. It will be absolutely seeded. Big Ten/Pac 12 aren't getting a possible advantage at all. SEC won't stand for it(and neither would ACC or Big 12). I mean this year if you had that dumb ass idea-
Sugar #1 LSU vs #4 Oklahoma
Rose #2 Ohio St vs #6 Oregon
Orange #3 Clemson vs Memphis
??? #5 Georgia vs #7 Baylor

why in the hell would Georgia and Baylor get that? Why would #3 have a much easier game than #1 or #2? That's just stupid.

Tradition is done with in determining the national championship. Period the end.

Rose Bowl is the only game that you would see any effort to get the B1G-PAC champion matchup. Scrap the SEC-B12 Sugar Bowl matchup, but make sure that either the SEC or B12 hosts that game. Same with the ACC and the Orange Bowl. The Cotton Bowl is more than acceptable as an alternative for the B12 or SEC champ...and the Peach Bowl is an acceptable alternative for the SEC or ACC champ.

It wouldn't be that big of a deal, unless both the B1G and PAC champs are both ranked in the top 4.

For this year specifically, it would look like this:

Sugar Bowl: #1 LSU v. #8 Memphis
Rose Bowl: #2 Ohio State v. #6 Oregon
Orange Bowl: #3 Clemson v. #7 Baylor
Cotton Bowl: #4 Oklahoma v. #5 Georgia

If instead Oregon were ranked #4, slide them into the Cotton Bowl and move Oklahoma in the Rose Bowl.

This year, not a huge difference between Oregon and Baylor, and especially not to disrupt a perfectly fine B1G-PAC matchup for the Rose Bowl.

That's what I actually think may eventually happen. The Rose Bowl matchup would be protected (which is the one that a critical mass of people actually care about), but you can't really have the SEC and Big 12 champs always playing each other on top of that. An 8-team playoff with P5 auto-bids is always going to be guaranteed to pit 2 P5 champs against each other, so it makes sense that it would be the Rose Bowl (and for those that worry about a "mismatch" seeding-wise like there would be on paper this year, the Big Ten and Pac-12 definitely care more about the Rose Bowl relationship than seeding issues). By the same token, though, you don't want to guarantee to knock out 2 P5 champs in the first round, so the ACC, SEC and Big 12 champs should all be in separate games. I look at it as no different than division winners in MLB and the NFL getting home field advantage over wild card teams even if the wild card teams have better records: if you're a P5 champ, then you get priority in going to your "home bowl" over the at-large teams.

More importantly, the bowl tie-ins do serve a key legal purpose in an 8-team playoff: the *individual* contractual tie-ins are what allow the P5 to have auto-bids in a way that the G5 conferences won't and still pass legal muster. That's why you could see the Big Ten champ always playing the Pac-12 champ in the Rose Bowl in an 8-team playoff, the SEC champ always going to the Sugar Bowl, et. al. The P5 conferences would make the same argument that they actually make to the G5 now: if any G5 league can find a bowl to pay them $40 million-plus per year for their champ, then they'll get an automatic contract bowl slot. (Of course, the P5 leagues know that won't happen in all likelihood, but the point is that the free market is dictating that to the G5 in a perfectly legal manner when there are individual contractual bowl tie-ins as opposed to the P5 dictating that to the G5 in an illegal restraint of trade action when it's a collective decision among multiple parties.) The P5 (just like the old BCS system) is always going to be on shaky ground if they justify their auto-bids based on competitive reasons and using a *collective* decision. As a result, they way to secure "auto-bids" is by economic free market contracting *individually* with specific bowls, which applies an entirely different analysis. The "collective action" versus "individual action" makes a huge difference here.

(12-13-2019 03:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years

I’d include the ACC in that group. If it wasn’t for Clemson, the ACC wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Long term, it’d benefit the ACC more than the Big XII and Pac-12 if the CFP expands to 8.

BS. Kick the ACC while they’re down, but FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech are all historically strong programs. Toss in Georgia Tech, UNC, Pitt, and Louisville and I don’t see how anyone can say it isn’t a P5 conference.

Hell, VaTech has Alabama and South Carolina coming to their stadium in the future. Don’t see that happening to the G5.

Clemson was OK in the 90’s and 2000’s, now that they’re playing elite let’s not forget the past.

The ACC had a horrible record in the BCS era. In the CFP, only Clemson has been relevant although Florida State made it in the first year. So nothing has changed that much since 1998.

Nobody is questioning the ACC’s place in the P5 but they’re far behind the SEC and B1G....heck even the XII. But there’s always the Pac-12, right?

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

Folding the bowls into the CFP would imply that they will.

(12-13-2019 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  PAC commissioner Larry Scott says missing the playoffs hurts the PAC brand. Also says he would only support 8-team playoff if it had auto-bids for the P5.

Well isn't that special? He would favor a playoff that would guarantee one of his teams gets in, LOL.

Bottom line is, we've seen this before: In 2016 when the Big 12 missed out, they rang the alarm bells. Last year, after the B1G missed out again, Delany of the B1G complained. Now the PAC is talking.

To the credit of the Big 12, they didn't whine about 8 teams, they talked about what they could do to be more competitive in making the 4-team playoff, and they did it. And to Scott's credit, he's not really whining about the 4 team CFP, he does say the PAC needs to get better, only Delany really did that.

But the moral to me is: There IS no general groundswell to move to 8 teams. It's just that whatever conference is left out of that year's four-team playoff grumbles.

https://sports.yahoo.com/commish-pac-12-...49307.html

Hmmmm.... I'd say the exact opposite. In the span of a couple of days, Jim Delany and Larry Scott, who were the two commissioners that were outright openly *against* a playoff system beyond the BCS and were essentially dragged into it kicking and screaming, have now been both quoted ON-THE-RECORD as being open to an 8-team playoff. This means that the two conferences that have been the most openly hostile against playoff expansion in the past are now publicly opening the door to further expansion. In a college football world where change occurs at a glacial pace and the parties defend the status quo to the bitter end, their comments actually do constitute a groundswell when it comes to the people that matter.

Scott's comment about only supporting it if there are P5 auto-bids also tracks with what I've said all along: we can debate "straight 8" versus "auto-bids" all day, but for the powers that be, the entire driving purpose of going to an 8-team playoff is so that there are P5 auto-bids. Otherwise, there's no point from the perspective of the powers that be.

(12-13-2019 03:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years

I’d include the ACC in that group. If it wasn’t for Clemson, the ACC wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Long term, it’d benefit the ACC more than the Big XII and Pac-12 if the CFP expands to 8.

BS. Kick the ACC while they’re down, but FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech are all historically strong programs. Toss in Georgia Tech, UNC, Pitt, and Louisville and I don’t see how anyone can say it isn’t a P5 conference.

Hell, VaTech has Alabama and South Carolina coming to their stadium in the future. Don’t see that happening to the G5.

Clemson was OK in the 90’s and 2000’s, now that they’re playing elite let’s not forget the past.

The ACC had a horrible record in the BCS era. In the CFP, only Clemson has been relevant although Florida State made it in the first year. So nothing has changed that much since 1998.

Nobody is questioning the ACC’s place in the P5 but they’re far behind the SEC and B1G....heck even the XII. But there’s always the Pac-12, right?

A horrible record in what? An essentially meaningless bowl game that everyone seems to think defines a conference?

There definitely was a national title drought though.

(12-13-2019 01:40 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

In this scenario, a P5 school would only have to be better than 9-13 teams in their conference. A G5 schools would have to be better than 70 other programs.

So how is it easier for a G5 than a school in a P5? Here's another thought: if you think your conference is too tough you can always join another one if you think it is an easier path.

Do I really have to explain it? Quantity doesn't trump quality. E.g., if someone told me to become Heavyweight Champion of the World, I could take path (a) which involves beating 20 seven-year old children, one a day for 20 straight days, or (b) beating Deontay Wilder and then Tyson Fury. Using your logic, The latter must be the easier path, because it's beating out two people compared to 20.

To make it clearer: Much harder to beat out a handful of teams if in that handful are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin than to beat out dozens of teams with nobody tougher than Memphis or Cincinnati.

Maybe the P5 will get suckered in to that?

(12-13-2019 12:16 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I said it before and I will say it again, if it goes to 8 it will be done the same way as four. Top 8 teams picked by the CFP not confernce champs. Problem is UCF making number 8 strengthens that arguement. If your champ is not in the top 8, they don't need to be there.

But, the system uses an extremely subjective process and moving-target criteria to determine whether a team is ranked in the top-8 or not. That would power would be absolutely abused if the playoff were to expand without autobids. Power brokers that represent institutions that have a direct financial interest in the outcomes that are based on their rankings are deciding how the teams are ranked. Think about that. Hmmmm...should we rank Alabama, Penn State, or UCF in that final #8 spot? I know which one would be thrown out first.

And, if you want it to succeed, you have to attract eyeballs from all over the country.

(12-13-2019 12:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again this is why I like four. It ensures at least one power conference is out. Will CFP force the Rose bowl to move from NYD? How will the semis work, Weekend before Christmas and then NYD/NY6?. Does it compete with the NFL on Sundays? There are a lot of variables to make 8 happen.

Why can't you have one of the quarterfinal games in the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. That actually fits perfectly!

And, there are two NFL wildcard games on the Saturday immediately after New Year's Day and two NFL divisional playoff games on the following Saturday. You could fit a couple of semifinal games around those schedules, even if the power-brokers determine that Friday or Monday CFP games are preferred. No need to over complicate things.

Exactly. I really think that an 8-team playoff would use the bowls circa New Years Day. In a weird way, it would be a blast to the past of the pre-BCS era where multiple bowls would have national championship implications on the same day.

You've mentioned the NFL. One other thing to watch out for is the NFL's proposal to lengthen the regular season and push the playoffs into February. If/when that occurs, that means that the Saturdays in January are totally free from any type of NFL playoff conflicts... which opens up spots for the college football playoff semifinals and national championship game accordingly. The TV networks would be all over to bid on it, as well. With the NFL playoffs shifting to February, that would make an 8-team college football playoff into the most valuable TV property available for the month of January. Essentially, it would be January Madness heading into the NFL playoffs heading into March Madness from a sports calendar perspective.

So, it's not exactly a stretch to connect the NFL scheduling plans with the increasing on-the-record openness to an 8-team playoff from people that actually matter (such as Delany and Scott). ESPN, Fox and others will certainly be pretty clear that the month of January will be wide open for an 8-team college football playoff if/when the NFL scheduling changes take effect.

(12-13-2019 03:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 03:02 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 10:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Obviously both the B12 and the PAC want auto bids. Neither like being the one fighting for the last spot and getting left out some years

I’d include the ACC in that group. If it wasn’t for Clemson, the ACC wouldn’t even be in the conversation. Long term, it’d benefit the ACC more than the Big XII and Pac-12 if the CFP expands to 8.

BS. Kick the ACC while they’re down, but FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech are all historically strong programs. Toss in Georgia Tech, UNC, Pitt, and Louisville and I don’t see how anyone can say it isn’t a P5 conference.

Hell, VaTech has Alabama and South Carolina coming to their stadium in the future. Don’t see that happening to the G5.

Clemson was OK in the 90’s and 2000’s, now that they’re playing elite let’s not forget the past.

The ACC had a horrible record in the BCS era. In the CFP, only Clemson has been relevant although Florida State made it in the first year. So nothing has changed that much since 1998.

Nobody is questioning the ACC’s place in the P5 but they’re far behind the SEC and B1G....heck even the XII. But there’s always the Pac-12, right?

Pac 12 >> ACC overall

The real push will come if ESPN or the CFP's television advisors tell the P5 that they need to go to 8 to get the amount of money they want.

(12-13-2019 03:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  More importantly, the bowl tie-ins do serve a key legal purpose in an 8-team playoff: the *individual* contractual tie-ins are what allow the P5 to have auto-bids in a way that the G5 conferences won't and still pass legal muster. That's why you could see the Big Ten champ always playing the Pac-12 champ in the Rose Bowl in an 8-team playoff, the SEC champ always going to the Sugar Bowl, et. al. The P5 conferences would make the same argument that they actually make to the G5 now: if any G5 league can find a bowl to pay them $40 million-plus per year for their champ, then they'll get an automatic contract bowl slot. (Of course, the P5 leagues know that won't happen in all likelihood, but the point is that the free market is dictating that to the G5 in a perfectly legal manner when there are individual contractual bowl tie-ins as opposed to the P5 dictating that to the G5 in an illegal restraint of trade action when it's a collective decision among multiple parties.) The P5 (just like the old BCS system) is always going to be on shaky ground if they justify their auto-bids based on competitive reasons and using a *collective* decision. As a result, they way to secure "auto-bids" is by economic free market contracting *individually* with specific bowls, which applies an entirely different analysis. The "collective action" versus "individual action" makes a huge difference here.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure that solves the legal problem. I mean yes, the P5 conferences all have mega-deals with big bowl games like the Rose, Sugar, etc. that mean they get far more of the CFP money-pot than do the G5 teams. And that is solid, because as you note it is based on market forces - the Orange Bowl is willing to pay the ACC $27.5m to play in it, but nobody is willing to pay the Sun Belt to play in their bowl game, and the law can't be used to force anyone to any more than it can be used to force a women to go out on a date with me if she doesn't want to.

But crucially, the current CFP playoff system itself doesn't have any such characteristic. It is formally entirely neutral, both in terms of money and access. Ohio State doesn't have any more of a formal path to the playoffs than does Tulsa, and if Ohio State and Tulsa both make the playoffs, they (or their conference) each gets the same flat rate. That's because playoff access isn't economic, it isn't based on market forces, but rather merit.

In contrast, switching to a 5-1-2, or 5-3 playoff model would introduce formal differences in conference access to the playoffs themselves, and that could very well open up a big legal can of worms. Nowhere else in college sports or any sport I can think of do you have a situation where conference X is guaranteed a spot but conference Y isn't. Even in sports like hoops, where the ACC might get 8 teams in and the MEAC just one, the formal rules are identical - each gets one autobid and then may or may not get any other at-large bids as determined by a committee.

So no, I don't think an attempt to conflate playoff access with the contracts the conferences have with the major bowls solves the problem. Heck, C-USA could say "well, we have a contract to send our champ to the Cajun Fried Turkey Bowl, so why isn't that "folded in" to the playoffs the way the Rose Bowl is"? There's no answer to that except an economic one, but an economic one is alien to what a playoffs is and a judge would see right through it, IMO.

In contrast .... straight 8! :)

(12-13-2019 03:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:40 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 12:28 PM)3BNole Wrote:  I agree completely with the 5-1-2 model.

5-1-2 gives Boise, Memphis, and UCF an easier path to the playoffs than FSU, USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

You really think the P5 will agree to that?

In this scenario, a P5 school would only have to be better than 9-13 teams in their conference. A G5 schools would have to be better than 70 other programs.

So how is it easier for a G5 than a school in a P5? Here's another thought: if you think your conference is too tough you can always join another one if you think it is an easier path.

Do I really have to explain it? Quantity doesn't trump quality. E.g., if someone told me to become Heavyweight Champion of the World, I could take path (a) which involves beating 20 seven-year old children, one a day for 20 straight days, or (b) beating Deontay Wilder and then Tyson Fury. Using your logic, The latter must be the easier path, because it's beating out two people compared to 20.

To make it clearer: Much harder to beat out a handful of teams if in that handful are Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin than to beat out dozens of teams with nobody tougher than Memphis or Cincinnati.

Maybe the P5 will get suckered in to that?

I get that argument, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's some type of ranking requirement for a G5 champ that wouldn't apply to the P5 champs. Maybe the G5 champ has to be top 12 (similar to the old BCS requirements) or simply have a rule that all top 8 G5 conference champs need to be included in the playoff (which is competitively fair because if a G5 champ would have made the playoff in a "straight 8" format, then it shouldn't be pushed out by a P5 at-large that had a separate opportunity to win an auto-bid).

That being said, you could separately argue that the top G5 team would have had to beaten 60-plus other G5 teams to get that playoff spot and it's done in a totally subjective manner. The P5 championship games would also effectively become playoff games, so that means that every P5 *division* winner has the opportunity to unambiguously and directly make it into the 8-team playoff. The 2 at-large spots would also presumably go to 2 P5 non-champs or Notre Dame, so 2 out of 5 P5 conferences are sending a 2nd team to the 8 team playoffs in most years. Without the G5 slot, you'd have 3 out of 5 P5 conferences getting at-large bids in most years. That might make for a more competitive playoff on paper, but that also detracts from the value and important of the P5 conference championship games if more than half of the losers (or at least non-champs) would still get into the playoff. Having only 2 at-large slots available creates much more urgency... and in turn, much more financial TV value... in those conference championship games.

I think that's what a lot of these playoff discussions miss. For the P5 conferences, the financial goal of the playoff system is to maximize the value of the regular season as opposed to the other way around. Too large of a playoff system dilutes the value of the regular season by making each individual game relatively meaningless. (You could argue that this is the case with the NBA, NHL and college basketball.) On the flip side, too small of a playoff system leaves money on the table from the regular season because that means only a relatively small handful of regular season games have any national implications. (You could argue that this has been the long-time issue with college football.) The NFL has almost the perfect balance in that regard: the playoff field is large enough that lots of regular season games will matter to lots of different teams late into the season, but also small enough that a team can't just blow the season and back into the playoffs (outside of extraordinarily bad divisions like the NFC East this year).

Too many at-large spots for the P5 conferences would dilute the value of the P5 conference championship games too heavily - the P5 leagues want to be able to sell those contests as de facto playoff games and be paid accordingly. However, the current 4-team CFP system inherently means that at least 1 P5 league gets shut out every year, which means the system is too small to maximize the value of those P5 conference championship games on the flip side since there are going to be years where it's meaningless for the national stage.

In any event, I'm not a G5 populist by any means, but I think it's a fair trade-off that the collective G5 receives a spot when every P5 team has a clear and unambiguous objective path to the playoff. If that's what it takes to get an 8-team playoff into place, then I'm all for it. I think it would finally get college football to where it has been destined to head to for a long time.