(04-26-2021 09:22 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-26-2021 02:06 PM)Blue_Trombone Wrote:  A plan without 10 autobids is *not* all inclusive full stop.

However the A5 and media partners would be perfectly happy with it effectively completely locking out half of FBS schools ... the question for them is whether the system is "inclusive enough" to avoid the risk of anti-trust action in particular, and political grandstanding by pollies with excluded constituencies that mar the media value of the CFP brand.

The media partners will want guaranteed spots for the A5 champions because it boosts the media value of the CCG contracts they already have.

An "all inclusive" play-in system would be the five Go5 champions and the remaining highest ranked non-A5 teams playing three "play-in" games on Army-Navy game day, then playing the three A5 at-larges the following week, seeded by ranking, hosted by the higher ranked school. That does the double trick of boosting the (much more modest) media value of the Go5 CCG's without undermining the brand value of winning a P5 CCG.

But giving the Go5 champions a six game path to the national championship (including the CCG) is going to get a lot of pushback, including within the NCAA regarding the number of games played by college football players, and the media value of the first stage games, which is a play-in for a play-in, and with three match-ups to choose from for those for whom two games on the day (including Army-Navy) suffice, would be substantially less certain. If there are only two FBS games on Army-Navy gameday, the second game is going to have a much better guaranteed floor audience of "must see football" viewers.

A Go5 best champion hosting the remaining highest ranked non-at-large and non-P5 for a spot is pro-forma inclusive as it provides each school with one guaranteed spot it is vying for and two at-large spots that formally everyone is vying for. It generates a bit more "bracket" interest in Go5 CCG's, than the NY6 chase, since in most years more CCG's will include a potential claimant for the one OR two spot, and the prize is a bigger prize. And it would certainly get strong buy-in from the Go5, and strong buy in from the Go5 means no anti-trust challenge and almost no risk of other activity that mars the brand value of the CFP.

IMO, the main competitive knock against a G5 autobid is that the champ will almost surely not have proven themselves against a top-10 level opponent. P5 are not going to want a G5 team to cruise in to the playoffs having faced nothing but other G5 and maybe some lower-tier P5. No P5 can get in that way.

So if we have to have autobids, have the top G5 team, if ranked outside the top 8, have a play-in against the highest-rated outside the top 8 P5 team for that 8th position.