(05-17-2018 02:01 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Many fans of non-power teams complain about committee bias in the March Madness selection process, too. But have you ever looked at who's on the basketball tournament selection committee? It's not stacked in favor of P5 conferences. Here is the 2018 committee:

Bruce Rasmussen, director of athletics at Creighton University (chair)
Bernard Muir, vice chair of committee and director of athletics, Stanford University
Mitch S. Barnhart, director of athletics, University of Kentucky
Tom Burnett, commissioner, Southland Conference
Janet Cone, director of athletics, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Tom Holmoe, director of athletics, Brigham Young University
Jim Phillips, vice president for athletics & recreation, Northwestern University
Jim Schaus, director of athletics, Ohio University
Craig Thompson, commissioner, Mountain West Conference
Kevin White, director of athletics, Duke University

Also, I doubt that what you're suggesting would have the effect that you're looking for. In fact, I strongly suspect that if the committee was structured that way, the designated representatives of G5 conferences would be less likely to support an undefeated G5 team than current committee members. For example, let's say that Boise State has a 13-0 season in 2018. There's a very strong chance that someone from the AAC, MAC, CUSA, or Sun Belt (or all of them) would think, "Hell, no, I don't want a Mountain West team to get the glory of making the playoff. The media would hype their conference over ours. I'll just vote Ohio State #4 instead, and I'll just nod my head while the committee chair tells the media that while we respect Boise's achievements, Ohio State's schedule strength was the deciding factor."

Seems to me that insisting that every conference be represented on the selection committee means that you are OK with members being biased - you just want them to vote their bias in your favor. Even then, it probably wouldn't change anything for G5 conferences. The Coaches' Poll is pretty evenly split between G5 and P5, but UCF wouldn't have been close to making the playoff last year based on their votes. They would have gotten an NY6 invite, which they got anyway. And last year was probably the most favorable situation for the G5 in years.

The CFP selection process isn't 90% of what is wrong with college football. It's not even 10% in my view.

Why would you assume that? I can only figure its because you believe G5 representatives cannot be unbiased. I think its interesting that you believe that G5 reps cannot be unbiased, but think that Selection Committee with an overwhelming majority of P5 representation WOULD be unbiased.


My feeling is that with more balance on the committee, its essentially impossible to arbitrarily exclude one group and favor another. When the committee is more balanced, it forces all points of view to be equally and fairly weighted----resulting in reasoned compromise and eventually---consensus.

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

(05-17-2018 11:59 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Every bowl reform idea runs up against an issue of numbers. If you simply say "must win six" or "must win seven", the probability is that in a given year, the number of bowls will either be too large and thus you have too many games and end up placing a school not meeting the criteria or you have too few and some schools meeting the criteria will come up short.

The error of thinking of bowl eligibility in terms of a specific win threshold is it is impossible to accommodate every eligible team every year unless you have too many games.

Let's change the criteria for a bowl operating under the assumption that CFP will stay at four.

We will have two types of bowl games.
Assigned by CFP and assigned by conference.

The CFP selection committee will rank 1-26 instead of 1-25

I appreciate the effort, but IMO this a solution groping for a non-existent problem to solve. That's because college football fans are generally happy with the lower-tier bowls, which is where your plan will have impact.

I mean, does anyone really think it will be a Big Deal if instead of the Gator Bowl featuring 8-4 Arkansas and 8-4 NC State (because it has ACC and SEC tie ins), under your plan it now features 9-3 UCLA vs 8-4 South Carolina because the CFP matched them on some merit principle?

From a public interest POV, those are indistinguishable on TV, and in the stadium the former matchup based on the current contracts is likely to draw a lot better.

(05-18-2018 02:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that. The reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-undefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

(05-18-2018 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Seems to me that insisting that every conference be represented on the selection committee means that you are OK with members being biased - you just want them to vote their bias in your favor. Even then, it probably wouldn't change anything for G5 conferences. The Coaches' Poll is pretty evenly split between G5 and P5, but UCF wouldn't have been close to making the playoff last year based on their votes. They would have gotten an NY6 invite, which they got anyway. And last year was probably the most favorable situation for the G5 in years.

The CFP selection process isn't 90% of what is wrong with college football. It's not even 10% in my view.

Why would you assume that? I can only figure its because you believe G5 representatives cannot be unbiased. I think its interesting that you believe that G5 reps cannot be unbiased, but think that Selection Committee with an overwhelming majority of P5 representation WOULD be unbiased.
[/quote]

I don't believe G5 representatives cannot be unbiased. I also don't believe the Selection Committee members should be presumed to be biased. If you think that having more G5 reps would change the committee's results, then you must either think the G5 reps are biased or that the P5 reps are. I don't see any evidence that either of these things are true.

(05-18-2018 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 02:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that, the reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-ndefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

(05-18-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 02:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that, the reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-ndefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

G5 school would have to be fortuitous enough to schedule in the same year and run the table OOC of @Bama, @Ohio State, @Clemson and @Oklahoma. If they then run the table of their conference they might be considered, but only if all P5 schools have at least 1 loss.

(05-18-2018 09:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 02:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  This sounds similar to the plan originally floated by the Sunbelt and ACC for the CFP selected games. I think you'd end up with more interesting matchups this way. On the other hand, you might just have the Committee putting 4 and 5 loss P5 teams in front of 0 or 1-loss G5 teams citing "strength of schedule" in order to preserve the best bowl slots for the P5.

Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that, the reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-ndefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

G5 school would have to be fortuitous enough to schedule in the same year and run the table OOC of @Bama, @Ohio State, @Clemson and @Oklahoma. If they then run the table of their conference they might be considered, but only if all P5 schools have at least 1 loss.

IMO, it could be done by a team that finishes undefeated and beats at least one "name" P5 team and preferably 2 P5 teams. Possibilities are the 2019 schedules for Houston (Oklahoma, Washington State) or Cincinnati (UCLA, Ohio State).

(05-18-2018 09:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 12:39 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-17-2018 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Honestly---there is just one reform I want. I want the CFP Selection Committee to be reformed to become a 10-member body with one representative from each FBS conference. That single move, all by itself, will fix 90% of what is wrong with college football.

Seems to me that insisting that every conference be represented on the selection committee means that you are OK with members being biased - you just want them to vote their bias in your favor. Even then, it probably wouldn't change anything for G5 conferences. The Coaches' Poll is pretty evenly split between G5 and P5, but UCF wouldn't have been close to making the playoff last year based on their votes. They would have gotten an NY6 invite, which they got anyway. And last year was probably the most favorable situation for the G5 in years.

The CFP selection process isn't 90% of what is wrong with college football. It's not even 10% in my view.

Why would you assume that? I can only figure its because you believe G5 representatives cannot be unbiased. I think its interesting that you believe that G5 reps cannot be unbiased, but think that Selection Committee with an overwhelming majority of P5 representation WOULD be unbiased.

I don't believe G5 representatives cannot be unbiased. I also don't believe the Selection Committee members should be presumed to be biased. If you think that having more G5 reps would change the committee's results, then you must either think the G5 reps are biased or that the P5 reps are. I don't see any evidence that either of these things are true.
[/quote]

I think its extremely easy to be very dismissive of a point of view when there is little to no representation of that point of view on the committee.

(05-18-2018 10:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 02:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If what you think is wrong in college football is basically a lack of appreciation for the best G5 teams by the CFP, you have to remember that a panel of the kind you are proposing is very unlikely to fix that problem.

That's because the perception that the best G5 teams aren't worthy of a top-4 ranking isn't confined to rabidly-biased P5 people, it's basically shared by everyone who isn't a fan of the particular G5 that thinks it is getting screwed.

Recall that this past season, before the playoffs, none of the six AAC coaches who had a vote in the coaches poll voted UCF in their top four, and after UCF beat Auburn, zero out of six AAC coaches voted UCF #1.

Really, last year, only a committee comprised of Mike Aresco and 9 UCF students and administrators would have put UCF in the playoffs.

Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that, the reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-ndefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

G5 school would have to be fortuitous enough to schedule in the same year and run the table OOC of @Bama, @Ohio State, @Clemson and @Oklahoma. If they then run the table of their conference they might be considered, but only if all P5 schools have at least 1 loss.

IMO, it could be done by a team that finishes undefeated and beats at least one "name" P5 team and preferably 2 P5 teams. Possibilities are the 2019 schedules for Houston (Oklahoma, Washington State) or Cincinnati (UCLA, Ohio State).

There is absolutely no evidence to support this point of view. UCF's schedule was roundly criticized for being too weak to warrant consideration for even the top 10. The UH schedule for 2016 that is often used as an example of a G5 schedule that would have been worthy of consideration had Houston gone undefeated actually had a weaker ranking than the 2017 UCF schedule. The "had Houston gone undefeated in 2016" talk is just noise. The reality is that the Committee would have simply pointed out the schedule strength as being too weak---and dismissed the undefeated season as irrelevant to the playoff. About the only difference is that 2016 Houston team (had they finished undefeated) might have cracked the top 10 due to having 2 top 5 victories---but we are talking a #9 or #10 finish given the massive P5 bias of the committee.

Lets be honest---the real bias is the decision that SOS is the be all end all. I have yet to have anyone adequately explain how losing to good teams is superior to beating a weaker team. Any team can lose to a good team.
It requires no special talent or skill to lose. The idea that "losing to a good team" is more impressive than "beating an average or weak team" is nothing more than opinion. However, making that opinion the bedrock of the selection process creates a built in bias for the desired end result that only P5's can make the playoff. SOS should be a factor---I dont argue that---but it cant be the ONLY factor without effectively eliminating every G5 from consideration before the first snap of the season.

That said, I like the expanded roster of CFP selected bowl matchups idea in the OP. I just think it has the to be done in conjunction with selection committee reform in order to have the desired result.

(05-18-2018 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 10:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps not, Last year the only undefeated team in the nation wasn’t even in the top ten. There is something systemically wrong when you have a result like that, the reality is not a single sane sports writer believes a G5 will ever be allowed in the playoff under the current set up—-ndefeted or not. When half of all schools are eliminated before the season even begins because they effectively cannot be selected regardless of thier performance—-there is an issue,.

Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

G5 school would have to be fortuitous enough to schedule in the same year and run the table OOC of @Bama, @Ohio State, @Clemson and @Oklahoma. If they then run the table of their conference they might be considered, but only if all P5 schools have at least 1 loss.

IMO, it could be done by a team that finishes undefeated and beats at least one "name" P5 team and preferably 2 P5 teams. Possibilities are the 2019 schedules for Houston (Oklahoma, Washington State) or Cincinnati (UCLA, Ohio State).

There is absolutely no evidence to support this point of view. UCF's schedule was roundly criticized for being too weak to warrant consideration for even the top 10. The UH schedule for 2016 that is often used as an example of a G5 schedule that would have been worthy of consideration had Houston gone undefeated actually had a weaker ranking than the 2017 UCF schedule. The "had Houston gone undefeated in 2016" talk is just noise. The reality is that the Committee would have simply pointed out the schedule strength as being too weak---and dismissed the undefeated season as irrelevant to the playoff. About the only difference is that 2016 Houston team (had they finished undefeated) might have cracked the top 10 due to having 2 top 5 victories---but we are talking a #9 or #10 finish given the massive P5 bias of the committee.

Lets be honest---the real bias is the decision that SOS is the be all end all. I have yet to have anyone adequately explain how losing to good teams is superior to beating a weaker team. Any team can lose to a good team.
It requires no special talent or skill to lose. The idea that "losing to a good team" is more impressive than "beating an average or weak team" is nothing more than opinion. However, making that opinion the bedrock of the selection process creates a built in bias for the desired end result that only P5's can make the playoff. SOS should be a factor---I dont argue that---but it cant be the ONLY factor without effectively eliminating every G5 from consideration before the first snap of the season.

That said, I like the expanded roster of CFP selected bowl matchups idea in the OP. I just think it has the to be done in conjunction with selection committee reform in order to have the desired result.

Personally, I'd like to do away with the Selection Committee entirely. If you refer to my proposed alternative conference reorganization post on JRSec's "summertime exercise", I suggested that, instead of essentially duplicating the AP Poll with a different set of voters, the Coaches' Poll include every FBS coach. And instead of voting for a Top 25, they vote only for a Top 10. That focuses their attention on only the very best teams.

I would then take both the AP and Coaches' Polls, and add the Massey Composite Ranking, the Sagarin Power rating, Billingsley and some version of the RPI/FPI for a total of six different ratings. I would throw out the highest and lowest rank for each team and average the remaining four rankings.

The Top Four ranked teams by that method would then go on to an invitational tournament starting on New Year's Day. The next 8 teams would be assigned to one of the other NY6 bowls. The winner of this tournament would have to agree not to make any claim to be a "national champion". The AP and Coaches can then have a final vote and the top ranked teams in each of those polls can make their own claim to a "mythical national championship" as we have had since 1936.

As a final touch, I would require that every coach make his Top Ten ballot public for all to see.

(05-18-2018 01:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 10:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:34 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-18-2018 09:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Have you taken a poll on that? I think you are projecting your own belief on to others. I'm not a sports writer, but I am sane (despite what some here would argue). I do believe that it will be very difficult, and very rare, for a G5 team to be one of the four best football teams in any given year. But "not allowed in the playoff"? That's an entirely different supposition, which I don't believe for a minute.

G5 school would have to be fortuitous enough to schedule in the same year and run the table OOC of @Bama, @Ohio State, @Clemson and @Oklahoma. If they then run the table of their conference they might be considered, but only if all P5 schools have at least 1 loss.

IMO, it could be done by a team that finishes undefeated and beats at least one "name" P5 team and preferably 2 P5 teams. Possibilities are the 2019 schedules for Houston (Oklahoma, Washington State) or Cincinnati (UCLA, Ohio State).

There is absolutely no evidence to support this point of view. UCF's schedule was roundly criticized for being too weak to warrant consideration for even the top 10. The UH schedule for 2016 that is often used as an example of a G5 schedule that would have been worthy of consideration had Houston gone undefeated actually had a weaker ranking than the 2017 UCF schedule. The "had Houston gone undefeated in 2016" talk is just noise. The reality is that the Committee would have simply pointed out the schedule strength as being too weak---and dismissed the undefeated season as irrelevant to the playoff. About the only difference is that 2016 Houston team (had they finished undefeated) might have cracked the top 10 due to having 2 top 5 victories---but we are talking a #9 or #10 finish given the massive P5 bias of the committee.

Lets be honest---the real bias is the decision that SOS is the be all end all. I have yet to have anyone adequately explain how losing to good teams is superior to beating a weaker team. Any team can lose to a good team.
It requires no special talent or skill to lose. The idea that "losing to a good team" is more impressive than "beating an average or weak team" is nothing more than opinion. However, making that opinion the bedrock of the selection process creates a built in bias for the desired end result that only P5's can make the playoff. SOS should be a factor---I dont argue that---but it cant be the ONLY factor without effectively eliminating every G5 from consideration before the first snap of the season.

That said, I like the expanded roster of CFP selected bowl matchups idea in the OP. I just think it has the to be done in conjunction with selection committee reform in order to have the desired result.

Personally, I'd like to do away with the Selection Committee entirely. If you refer to my proposed alternative conference reorganization post on JRSec's "summertime exercise", I suggested that, instead of essentially duplicating the AP Poll with a different set of voters, the Coaches' Poll include every FBS coach. And instead of voting for a Top 25, they vote only for a Top 10. That focuses their attention on only the very best teams.

I would then take both the AP and Coaches' Polls, and add the Massey Composite Ranking, the Sagarin Power rating, Billingsley and some version of the RPI/FPI for a total of six different ratings. I would throw out the highest and lowest rank for each team and average the remaining four rankings.

The Top Four ranked teams by that method would then go on to an invitational tournament starting on New Year's Day. The next 8 teams would be assigned to one of the other NY6 bowls. The winner of this tournament would have to agree not to make any claim to be a "national champion". The AP and Coaches can then have a final vote and the top ranked teams in each of those polls can make their own claim to a "mythical national championship" as we have had since 1936.

As a final touch, I would require that every coach make his Top Ten ballot public for all to see.

I like that idea much much better than what we have.