(01-10-2021 01:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-09-2021 01:13 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Again, I go back to this option with the 5-1-2 model: The G5 team must meet certain criteria to make the playoff. Otherwise, there will no G5 team for that season and three at-large participants instead of two. Simple.

Now, and admittedly, what those criterion would be ...

Why does there have to be criterion only for the G5 entry? Is there criterion for each of the 5 P5 auto bids? Who says all 5 P5 champs would be in the top 8 each year? You could theoretically have a 3 or 4 loss champ.

I think the CFP needs to include the best G5 team to avoid an eventual anti-trust lawsuit, if they don't do it. Right now, at 4 slots, they can hide behind the fact that they don't allow all P5 champs in, either. At 8, they wouldn't have that cover.

Problem with 5/1/2 is that who the "best" G5 team is will be totally subjective, chosen by a committee and thus prone to the same biases that many claim mar the selection of the current CFP teams. Look at this year - on paper, Coastal was at least as impressive as Cincy, but Coastal was always ranked well behind them, because Cincy is a higher profile program. Cincy had the same bias working against Coastal that Ohio State had working against Cincy. That's likely the way the G5 autobid would work - higher profile programs like Cincy, UCF, Memphis, Houston and Boise would have a brand recognition advantage over teams from the MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt.

Also, I think 5/1/2 is more prone to anti-trust than straight 8, because with straight 8, like the CFP and BCS, no conference has an autobid. With 5/1/2, each P5 would but each G5 would not, that's a formal distinction that could cause legal trouble.