The 8 team setup will eventually be here. I think real question is where do you play the first round. On campus sites or neutral sites, I have gone back and forth on both options. On campus sites give the home team a large advantage and also locks in the G5 champion for a impossible to win road game but it does protect the top four. Neutral sites have the issue of getting to fans the games and bringing in more outside interest into the system.

(11-18-2017 10:22 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  For the 1000th time. It would be top 8, no Conference Champs. CFP is not going to give autobids!

Correct, and UCF would not get a bid no matter what, a 7-4 Ohio state would jump us.

(11-19-2017 09:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 10:22 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  For the 1000th time. It would be top 8, no Conference Champs. CFP is not going to give autobids!

Correct, and UCF would not get a bid no matter what, a 7-4 Ohio state would jump us.

I disagree for two reasons, stated above but that's not going to stop me from re-stating below.

1. I don't think the P5 will sign off on another playoff system that does not guarantee autobids to the P5 champions. (SEC might, everyone else will want a contract guarantee that their champion is in the playoff.)
2. I don't think the P5 want to deal with the political mudwrestling involved in cutting out the G5 entirely, so the Access Bowl spot morphs into an annual #8 seed.

Having 2 at-larges instead of 3 also helps the argument about whether 8 vs 4 devalues the regular season. With 3 fallback spots, Alabama, Miami, Clemson would all have a pretty comfortable cushion if they lose the Iron Bowl or CCG. With 2 spots, there's a lot less margin for error for the top teams. Plus, having the G5 representative as the #8 seed gives the #1 seed a bonus, as they're almost always going to be ranked well below #8.

In other words, I expect that the current CFP balance of power, where the G5 as a whole is a more-or-less equal partner of the SEC, ACC, XII, B1G and PAC to continue. (G5 gets a guaranteed spot, just like each P5, G5 as a whole gets about 1/6 of the CFP revenue when all is said and done.)

Why not a adapting system? The CFP committee can determine anywhere between 4 and 8 teams to play in the playoffs. So, for instance, if one year there are exactly four undefeated P5 teams, they make it and thats it. The next year, there are 2 undefeated teams, 4 1 loss teams and 2 -2 loss teams that could potentially be worthy - 8 team playoff. The next year there are only 6 teams, so the top 2 get a bye. The next year only 5, so the top 3 get a "bye" while the 4/5 play a play-in game.

(11-18-2017 11:26 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 11:12 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 11:07 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 11:01 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 09:36 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Perfect way to make the regular season irrelevant sans the last couple of weeks of the year.

My thoughts exactly.

People complain about "cupcake" schedules now, imagine if you expanded to 8 teams, no one would want to play ANYONE out of conference for fear of losing out.

No, autobids mean that if you go undefeated in your conference, you're in no matter what happened OOC. And the competition for the two at-large bids is going to favor schools with big OOC wins on their resume.

I agree that autobids would be a must.

However.....

A 2 or 3 loss conference champion getting in over a 1 loss divisional runner up might be a tough pill to swallow for some.

The division runner up needs to have the resume to claim one of the 2-3 at large bids. (And I don't think the P5 want to deal with the political hassle of shutting out the G5, so there would be a G5 autobid).

I really don't think that would be an issue. The P5 is where the money and power is at, not to mention the backing of the networks and the ones writing the checks. The P5 (except the XII) didn't give a crap about shutting out the G5 when they set up conference networks. They also didn't give a crap about the G5 when they were signing TV contracts with the networks for their conference sports programming.

The P5 worrying about the Political hassle of the G5 would be like the GOP and Democrats worrying about offending the Green Party. Give them their NYD bowl game and worry about crowning a national champion from the P5.

(11-19-2017 10:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 09:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 10:22 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  For the 1000th time. It would be top 8, no Conference Champs. CFP is not going to give autobids!

Correct, and UCF would not get a bid no matter what, a 7-4 Ohio state would jump us.

I disagree for two reasons, stated above but that's not going to stop me from re-stating below.

1. I don't think the P5 will sign off on another playoff system that does not guarantee autobids to the P5 champions. (SEC might, everyone else will want a contract guarantee that their champion is in the playoff.)
2. I don't think the P5 want to deal with the political mudwrestling involved in cutting out the G5 entirely, so the Access Bowl spot morphs into an annual #8 seed.

Having 2 at-larges instead of 3 also helps the argument about whether 8 vs 4 devalues the regular season. With 3 fallback spots, Alabama, Miami, Clemson would all have a pretty comfortable cushion if they lose the Iron Bowl or CCG. With 2 spots, there's a lot less margin for error for the top teams. Plus, having the G5 representative as the #8 seed gives the #1 seed a bonus, as they're almost always going to be ranked well below #8.

In other words, I expect that the current CFP balance of power, where the G5 as a whole is a more-or-less equal partner of the SEC, ACC, XII, B1G and PAC to continue. (G5 gets a guaranteed spot, just like each P5, G5 as a whole gets about 1/6 of the CFP revenue when all is said and done.)

Which would cause more headaches, the G5 pouting or having a 1 loss SEC, PAC, or B1G runner up getting bounced in favor of a MAC team? You want to see "it" hit the fan, try doing that.

There's no way playoff games could be hosted on campus. Vendor licenses, security, parking management are planned many months in advance for large (P5) football games. Many smaller (and some larger) towns don't have the budget for police overtime. Getting that through beurocratic red tape with only a few weeks' notice is such a non starter for so many of the potential schools that it would never be agreed upon by the NCAA.

(11-19-2017 05:11 PM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 10:15 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-19-2017 09:07 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(11-18-2017 10:22 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  For the 1000th time. It would be top 8, no Conference Champs. CFP is not going to give autobids!

Correct, and UCF would not get a bid no matter what, a 7-4 Ohio state would jump us.

I disagree for two reasons, stated above but that's not going to stop me from re-stating below.

1. I don't think the P5 will sign off on another playoff system that does not guarantee autobids to the P5 champions. (SEC might, everyone else will want a contract guarantee that their champion is in the playoff.)
2. I don't think the P5 want to deal with the political mudwrestling involved in cutting out the G5 entirely, so the Access Bowl spot morphs into an annual #8 seed.

Having 2 at-larges instead of 3 also helps the argument about whether 8 vs 4 devalues the regular season. With 3 fallback spots, Alabama, Miami, Clemson would all have a pretty comfortable cushion if they lose the Iron Bowl or CCG. With 2 spots, there's a lot less margin for error for the top teams. Plus, having the G5 representative as the #8 seed gives the #1 seed a bonus, as they're almost always going to be ranked well below #8.

In other words, I expect that the current CFP balance of power, where the G5 as a whole is a more-or-less equal partner of the SEC, ACC, XII, B1G and PAC to continue. (G5 gets a guaranteed spot, just like each P5, G5 as a whole gets about 1/6 of the CFP revenue when all is said and done.)

Which would cause more headaches, the G5 pouting or having a 1 loss SEC, PAC, or B1G runner up getting bounced in favor of a MAC team? You want to see "it" hit the fan, try doing that.

It's two different scales. The G5 pouting takes the form possible antitrust actions, possibly finding a sympathetic Senator to be on your rear end. Actually, the P5 might need the G5's votes to get another game approved--on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors the P5 has 10 votes, the G5 has 5 votes and the rest of Division I has 10 votes.

I'm pretty sure a one-loss P5 team gets one of the two at-large spots anyway. Take this year for example. The remaining one-loss teams would win their conference if they win out. The only undefeated P5 teams left are Alabama, Miami and Wisconsin. So you'd have to have Alabama, Miami and Wisconsin ALL lose their CCGs (or maybe Alabama losing the Iron Bowl)) to have one of them left out of the 8-team field in favor of an undefeated UCF (or maybe a 12-1 Memphis, who knows).

What about the idea to have an 8-team playoff WITHOUT conference championship games?

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/8-team-playoff.html

Most conference championship games haven't really been that compelling. Because of divisional alignment, you often don't get the two top teams from the conference in the game. SEC West, ACC Atlantic, and PAC North teams have won like 6 or 7 years in a row. The B1G is the only autonomy conference where there has been somewhat consistent divisional balance. The CCG often doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Even the "balanced" B1G saw its CCG meaningless to the playoff last year.

So, why not expand the playoff while eliminating conference championship games? If needed, each round could be played at pre-determine sites to address logistical concerns. But, I tend to think that host universities, media partners and sponsors and local communities would make it work. (least of their concerns would be police overtime pay - which the universities and media partners would pay for anyway....the NFL makes it work....)

EDIT: AND, this gets rid of the need to have divisional round-robin schedules within a conference. Instead, the conferences could be free to set rotations that favor conference mates to play each other more frequently, likely with certain locked annual games as circumstances dictate. THAT could be a big win for conferences as well.

(11-20-2017 04:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about the idea to have an 8-team playoff WITHOUT conference championship games?

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/8-team-playoff.html

Most conference championship games haven't really been that compelling. Because of divisional alignment, you often don't get the two top teams from the conference in the game. SEC West, ACC Atlantic, and PAC North teams have won like 6 or 7 years in a row. The B1G is the only autonomy conference where there has been somewhat consistent divisional balance. The CCG often doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Even the "balanced" B1G saw its CCG meaningless to the playoff last year.

So, why not expand the playoff while eliminating conference championship games? If needed, each round could be played at pre-determine sites to address logistical concerns. But, I tend to think that host universities, media partners and sponsors and local communities would make it work. (least of their concerns would be police overtime pay - which the universities and media partners would pay for anyway....)

The conferences will not want to surrender the money from the CCGs.

(11-20-2017 04:14 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about the idea to have an 8-team playoff WITHOUT conference championship games?

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/8-team-playoff.html

Most conference championship games haven't really been that compelling. Because of divisional alignment, you often don't get the two top teams from the conference in the game. SEC West, ACC Atlantic, and PAC North teams have won like 6 or 7 years in a row. The B1G is the only autonomy conference where there has been somewhat consistent divisional balance. The CCG often doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Even the "balanced" B1G saw its CCG meaningless to the playoff last year.

So, why not expand the playoff while eliminating conference championship games? If needed, each round could be played at pre-determine sites to address logistical concerns. But, I tend to think that host universities, media partners and sponsors and local communities would make it work. (least of their concerns would be police overtime pay - which the universities and media partners would pay for anyway....)

The conferences will not want to surrender the money from the CCGs.

Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

(11-20-2017 04:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:14 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about the idea to have an 8-team playoff WITHOUT conference championship games?

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/8-team-playoff.html

Most conference championship games haven't really been that compelling. Because of divisional alignment, you often don't get the two top teams from the conference in the game. SEC West, ACC Atlantic, and PAC North teams have won like 6 or 7 years in a row. The B1G is the only autonomy conference where there has been somewhat consistent divisional balance. The CCG often doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Even the "balanced" B1G saw its CCG meaningless to the playoff last year.

So, why not expand the playoff while eliminating conference championship games? If needed, each round could be played at pre-determine sites to address logistical concerns. But, I tend to think that host universities, media partners and sponsors and local communities would make it work. (least of their concerns would be police overtime pay - which the universities and media partners would pay for anyway....)

The conferences will not want to surrender the money from the CCGs.

Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

The 7 game, 8 team CFP would then have to replace the revenue from the current NAtional Chamionship Game, the 6 CFP bowls AND the 10 CCGs. That's a tall order, in an environment where ESPN may not be spending as freely as they have been in the past.

(11-20-2017 04:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:14 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:10 PM)YNot Wrote:  What about the idea to have an 8-team playoff WITHOUT conference championship games?

http://thecomeback.com/ncaa/8-team-playoff.html

Most conference championship games haven't really been that compelling. Because of divisional alignment, you often don't get the two top teams from the conference in the game. SEC West, ACC Atlantic, and PAC North teams have won like 6 or 7 years in a row. The B1G is the only autonomy conference where there has been somewhat consistent divisional balance. The CCG often doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Even the "balanced" B1G saw its CCG meaningless to the playoff last year.

So, why not expand the playoff while eliminating conference championship games? If needed, each round could be played at pre-determine sites to address logistical concerns. But, I tend to think that host universities, media partners and sponsors and local communities would make it work. (least of their concerns would be police overtime pay - which the universities and media partners would pay for anyway....)

The conferences will not want to surrender the money from the CCGs.

Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

I agree, you can do this with a P4 setup which ND is part of and separate from the Gof5 (non starter).

Or... regional QFs. So every FBS conference will play 8 conference games and 4 OOC games. Then you do a final ranking after 12 games.

There is the threat of 3-4 teams from one conference qualifying, so you might have to finagle a bit with the rankings a little bit for a somewhat disperse geographical weighting.... for example:

1. Must finish in the top 2-3 of your conference.
2. H2H tie breakers if available.
3. SoS

Once you pinpoint the 8 teams, you can bracket them in a regional setup with the most favorable matchups according to seeding. Pick 4 regional sites like LA, Dallas, Miami, Atl and rotate among 12-16 cities every 3-4 years in lieu of CCGs.

Something in 2017 could look like:

1. Bama 12-0 (Dallas)
2. Miami 12-0 (Atlanta)
3. Clemson 11-1 (Indianapolis)
4. OU 11-1 (LA)
5. Wisconsin 12-0
6. UGa 11-1
7. ND 10-2
8. OSU 10-2

(11-20-2017 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

The 7 game, 8 team CFP would then have to replace the revenue from the current NAtional Chamionship Game, the 6 CFP bowls AND the 10 CCGs. That's a tall order, in an environment where ESPN may not be spending as freely as they have been in the past.

The 4 first round playoff games would only need to replace the revenue from the 5 P5 conference championship games. Which I think they would - 4 elimination playoff games.

The other NY6 bowls stay in place...just like they do in the current CCG system. CFP Round 1 would replace the CCGs in early or mid December - the rest of the system stays in place.

The G5 CCGs aren't worth much as it is and wouldn't really be affected by the playoff expansion. They could stay in place - or, this scenario might motivate a separate G5 playoff or NIT.

And, I'm not sure the current environment provides any evidence whatsoever that conferences or the playoffs will earn less money. The B1G's recent TV deal with ESPN, FOX, and CBS nearly tripled the B1G 's take (despite ESPN losing inventory). The power conferences and playoffs are set to earn more...not less.

(11-20-2017 05:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

I agree, you can do this with a P4 setup which ND is part of and separate from the Gof5 (non starter).

Or... regional QFs. So every FBS conference will play 8 conference games and 4 OOC games. Then you do a final ranking after 12 games.

There is the threat of 3-4 teams from one conference qualifying, so you might have to finagle a bit with the rankings a little bit for a somewhat disperse geographical weighting.... for example:

1. Must finish in the top 2-3 of your conference.
2. H2H tie breakers if available.
3. SoS

Once you pinpoint the 8 teams, you can bracket them in a regional setup with the most favorable matchups according to seeding. Pick 4 regional sites like LA, Dallas, Miami, Atl and rotate among 12-16 cities every 3-4 years in lieu of CCGs.

Something in 2017 could look like:

1. Bama 12-0 (Dallas)
2. Miami 12-0 (Atlanta)
3. Clemson 11-1 (Indianapolis)
4. OU 11-1 (LA)
5. Wisconsin 12-0
6. UGa 11-1
7. ND 10-2
8. OSU 10-2

You left out the PAC. No playoff expansion will work unless there is an autobid for each of the P5 conferences. The CFP seeding might look like this, using current rankings:

DFW: (1)Alabama(SEC) v. (8)USC(PAC)
Atlanta: (2)Miami(ACC) v. (7) Georgia(wild card)
Las Vegas: (3)Oklahoma(B12) v. (6)Auburn(wild card)
Indianapolis: (4)Clemson(wild card) v. (5)Wisconsin(B1G)

OR

(8)USC at (1)Alabama
(7)Georgia at (2)Miami
(6)Auburn at (3)Oklahoma
(5)Wisconsin at (4)Clemson

Winners play in Rose and Sugar bowls. Others eligible for NY6 bids (just like CCG losers).

[quote='BadgerMJ' pid='14798933' dateline='1511064617']

Before any expansion is discussed, how about getting the conferences to play the same number of conference games? Everyone plays the three "warm-up" games at the beginning of the season then plays 9 conference games. That way you don't have certain teams playing a conference game in November and others playing Mercer. Everyone should be on the same terms.
[quote]

If we are going to do that then the Big Slow needs to get rid of the in-conference cupcakes.

(11-20-2017 05:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:37 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 04:27 PM)YNot Wrote:  Unless it makes them even more money because the CFP quarterfinals would bring in more money than the individual CCGs combined...

The 7 game, 8 team CFP would then have to replace the revenue from the current NAtional Chamionship Game, the 6 CFP bowls AND the 10 CCGs. That's a tall order, in an environment where ESPN may not be spending as freely as they have been in the past.

The 4 first round playoff games would only need to replace the revenue from the 5 P5 conference championship games. Which I think they would - 4 elimination playoff games.

This part holds up. 4 games is fewer than 5, but each of those games holds more interest. (On the other hand, each conference controls its CCG revenue, while the CFP revenue gets shared, including a slice to the G5)

Quote:The other NY6 bowls stay in place...just like they do in the current CCG system. CFP Round 1 would replace the CCGs in early or mid December - the rest of the system stays in place.

Except that you've radically devalued the non-playoff major bowls relative to now. Say the Rose and Peach are the semifinals--the Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta and Orange Bowls would be no different than the Gator, Holiday, Alamo, Liberty, Tampa, Charlotte bowls.

Quote:The G5 CCGs aren't worth much as it is and wouldn't really be affected by the playoff expansion. They could stay in place - or, this scenario might motivate a separate G5 playoff or NIT.

If you cut out the G5 like this, they pretty much have to go nuclear--lawsuits, getting a Senator or two on their side to make noise, anything they can think of. Because that would be effectively kicking these programs out of FBS.

Quote:And, I'm not sure the current environment provides any evidence whatsoever that conferences or the playoffs will earn less money. The B1G's recent TV deal with ESPN, FOX, and CBS nearly tripled the B1G 's take (despite ESPN losing inventory). The power conferences and playoffs are set to earn more...not less.

WE'll see. The B1G deal is either an indication that the party will continue on forever, or it was the last big media deal before the correction. (Disclosure: I expected the Big Ten package to be the first to feel the effects of cord-cutting and ESPN's impending financial crisis. I was wrong).

(11-20-2017 05:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  You left out the PAC. No playoff expansion will work unless there is an autobid for each of the P5 conferences. The CFP seeding might look like this, using current rankings:

DFW: (1)Alabama(SEC) v. (8)USC(PAC)
Atlanta: (2)Miami(ACC) v. (7) Georgia(wild card)
Las Vegas: (3)Oklahoma(B12) v. (6)Auburn(wild card)
Indianapolis: (4)Clemson(wild card) v. (5)Wisconsin(B1G)

OR

(8)USC at (1)Alabama
(7)Georgia at (2)Miami
(6)Auburn at (3)Oklahoma
(5)Wisconsin at (4)Clemson

Winners play in Rose and Sugar bowls. Others eligible for NY6 bids (just like CCG losers).

Some first place P5 teams may finish with three losses some years, so I couldn't take USC this year over a two loss ND. Not to mention you will be throwing away the 13 data point so you only have 12 games to get the rankings right. 8 teams still leaves little flexibility without the CCG weekend.

But even if autobids are the case, ND would challenge it as would the Gof5 (having no realistic shot at a top 8 ranking without appropriate scheduling start of the year). I'm not saying top 8 works all the time, but once you add extra requirements to qualify, it gets dicey. No perfect solution.

(11-20-2017 06:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:47 PM)YNot Wrote:  The 4 first round playoff games would only need to replace the revenue from the 5 P5 conference championship games. Which I think they would - 4 elimination playoff games.

This part holds up. 4 games is fewer than 5, but each of those games holds more interest. (On the other hand, each conference controls its CCG revenue, while the CFP revenue gets shared, including a slice to the G5)

I can't recall what percentage the G5 gets. The devil's in that detail.

(11-20-2017 06:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:The other NY6 bowls stay in place...just like they do in the current CCG system. CFP Round 1 would replace the CCGs in early or mid December - the rest of the system stays in place.

Except that you've radically devalued the non-playoff major bowls relative to now. Say the Rose and Peach are the semifinals--the Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta and Orange Bowls would be no different than the Gator, Holiday, Alamo, Liberty, Tampa, Charlotte bowls.

No different than the status quo - the four non-CFP NY6 games are better than the other bowls, as seen in their channel selections, kickoff times, and ratings.

(11-20-2017 06:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:The G5 CCGs aren't worth much as it is and wouldn't really be affected by the playoff expansion. They could stay in place - or, this scenario might motivate a separate G5 playoff or NIT.

If you cut out the G5 like this, they pretty much have to go nuclear--lawsuits, getting a Senator or two on their side to make noise, anything they can think of. Because that would be effectively kicking these programs out of FBS.

The G5 would still hold the contract autobid to the NY6 and would be eligible for the CFP if they finish in the top-8. IF absolutely necessary, the expanded CFP could reserve a spot for the top G5 champ - though in practice it would more likely be through a play-in game against an at large P5 team.

(11-20-2017 06:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:And, I'm not sure the current environment provides any evidence whatsoever that conferences or the playoffs will earn less money. The B1G's recent TV deal with ESPN, FOX, and CBS nearly tripled the B1G 's take (despite ESPN losing inventory). The power conferences and playoffs are set to earn more...not less.

WE'll see. The B1G deal is either an indication that the party will continue on forever, or it was the last big media deal before the correction. (Disclosure: I expected the Big Ten package to be the first to feel the effects of cord-cutting and ESPN's impending financial crisis. I was wrong).

You might be right on how cord-cutting damages ESPN. However, I think you will continue to be wrong on how cord-cutting will affect the amount of money that college football will continue to generate - and the likely increased revenue that would come from an expanded playoff.

(11-20-2017 06:08 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(11-20-2017 05:49 PM)YNot Wrote:  You left out the PAC. No playoff expansion will work unless there is an autobid for each of the P5 conferences. The CFP seeding might look like this, using current rankings:

DFW: (1)Alabama(SEC) v. (8)USC(PAC)
Atlanta: (2)Miami(ACC) v. (7) Georgia(wild card)
Las Vegas: (3)Oklahoma(B12) v. (6)Auburn(wild card)
Indianapolis: (4)Clemson(wild card) v. (5)Wisconsin(B1G)

OR

(8)USC at (1)Alabama
(7)Georgia at (2)Miami
(6)Auburn at (3)Oklahoma
(5)Wisconsin at (4)Clemson

Winners play in Rose and Sugar bowls. Others eligible for NY6 bids (just like CCG losers).

Some first place P5 teams may finish with three losses some years, so I couldn't take USC this year over a two loss ND. Not to mention you will be throwing away the 13 data point so you only have 12 games to get the rankings right. 8 teams still leaves little flexibility without the CCG weekend.

But even if autobids are the case, ND would challenge it as would the Gof5 (having no realistic shot at a top 8 ranking without appropriate scheduling start of the year). I'm not saying top 8 works all the time, but once you add extra requirements to qualify, it gets dicey. No perfect solution.

It would definitely help to avoid any potential anti-trust issues or G5 lawsuits. As long as you keep the NY6 access for the G5 and use the selection committee to rank the top-8, you're good.

I just don't know if the P5 conferences would agree to expand the playoff and eliminate conference championship games without some sort of assurance - which makes the proposed 8-team playoff impractical.