Quote:The NCAA will have nothing to do with it.

The NCAA will have nothing to do with the FBS playoff scheme?

Quote:I largely agree with the rest of your post about the problem of unconditional auto-bids for anyone, P5 or G5. But IMO, the problem is best solved by not having autobids and instead using just rankings - straight 8.

I don't. Skipping a conference winner or two at #9 & #10 for extra SEC & B1G teams would send too many people spinning.

In a playoff scheme, I think the first step is to eliminate clear disasters. Then eliminating too much WTF that can happen once in a good while.

The unconditional auto-bid for any P5 Champ is a bad thing for an Actual Playoff because once in a good while, they may be ranked too far away from #8. Add to that, G5 Champs even closer to #8 won't be allowed in.

But solving this by saying Conf Championships don't count as a "step" at all in the greater scheme of the road to the Playoffs, IMO, would present a problem as well. That Would put a dent in Conf Championships (they'd be for particular rank-chasing, IF applicable; otherwise loses a lot of meaning).... because no Conf Champ bowls will exist, aside from the CUSA vs MAC Champ games that unofficially come about these days. You'd be playing for less. It doesn't help your cause to make it anywhere.

My Viewpoint:
Right now the # of slots (4) doesn't even cover half the # of conferences, so, yes, pure rank. But once the # of slots cover a majority of conferences, it should play a role. Once the # of slots cover the # of conferences -- and then some, due to lower conferences -- then you include them all.

IMO, your pure-rank scheme, if one were to apply it, would be more fitting in the NFL than college. I think rank becomes more questionable as The solidified "earned" position, the more teams there are VS games played.

Since the # of slots covers a majority of the conferences, you should have it play a role when you get to 8 teams on the bottom slots.

I think fans across the country, a litmus test of what's best, would be more happy down the line if the #5 & #6 of at-larges were in, but the #7 & #8 at-larges were trumped by #9-#not-far-down who were Conf Champs, as #7 & #8 failed to do so and the ranking is so close.

If there many more conferences (and yeah, teams) -- I would agree that one should push away Conf Championship, and just go by rank if it's just 8-team playoff. That said, even in a straight-8 format, I would still keep another exception. I would want to prevent too many teams from the 8-team playoff from being from the same conference. Top 4 -- OK, doesn't matter. But instead of the bottom two seeds being trumped by Conf Champs, IMO, it'd still be best for them to be potentially trumped by getting a team from somewhere else who doesn't have conference representation, and is ranked directly below. It'd all vary by how many #7/8 already have in there, as you wouldn't nix a 2nd team from the same conference for the sake of "over population". But you would a 3rd or 4th.