(12-18-2018 03:49 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

How can you say “it guarantees a viable path for every team” when if two G5’s go undefeated one is left out if not ranked high enough?

He can't. He doesn't care though, because his real goal is to boost the AAC, and he figures the AAC champ will get that automatic G5 spot more years than not.

His rhetoric of "everyone having a chance on the field" is only rhetoric. Fact is, under his system, fully half of FBS, the G5 half, will be chosen by a beauty pageant judge panel. But that's not what matters.

What's even more cynical about the 5 +1 +2 proposal is he's counting on the AAC champ getting that "1" bid more years than not on the *exact same basis* that the AAC champ currently fails to make the actual four-team CFP - stuff like strength of schedule and quality of wins and losses.

Coog and others rail about that when it keeps an unbeaten UCF behind a 2-loss Michigan in the CFP standings because Michigan played a tougher schedule, but they will welcome it when a UCF or Houston team with more losses is ranked ahead of unbeaten Sun Belt team in the G5 standings for the same reason.

(12-18-2018 03:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

I’ll scream from the rafters: 16 team playoff, 10 conference champs, 6 at large. Special provisions for Indy teams (I will elaborate another time). Take the power away from debates, biases, generalizations, and labels.

Every FBS team should have a clear path to the national championship.

Why?

Because in every other NCAA sport, all teams start with a path to the NC that is not dependent on beauty contests.

(12-18-2018 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:42 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:25 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, it doesn't make sense to design a system, something used every year, to handle a 1 in 500 probability. And let's face it, the odds that Akron would ever have the players and system to beat the likes of Alabama and Clemson is probably 1 in 500, if not lower. I mean, the odds against are pretty astronomical.

But anyway, if that did in fact happen, my proposed system would give that Akron team the opportunity. It provides a clear path to the title for Akron, while recognizing the *fact*, not assumption, that the P5 conferences are better.

Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

(12-18-2018 03:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:21 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  How is this even an argument? How can a team, any team, already be out of consideration before a down of football is played? This stinks of unamerican “3/5 compromise” segregation.

Take Akron for example. Their 2019 schedule includes Illinois, UMASS, UAB, and Troy. Add to that their MAC schedule, and in our current system by any consistent metric they are already ineligible for consideration into the playoff. The closed door secret society committee could and would never allow this to happen regardless of what’s happens on the field.

Actually, the open door AP and Coaches polls wouldn't put an Akron team that won all its games against a schedule that soft in either, nor would the computers - and for a good reason, beating that soft schedule doesn't prove you are one of the best 8 or 16 teams.

I have a better idea that also provides a path for everyone:

After the CCGs, the G5 teams play playoffs among themselves. The two lowest ranked G5 champs play, then the winner of that advances to play the #1 ranked G5 champ while the #2 and #3 G5 champs play each other. Then the two survivors play a final to determine the overall G5 champ.

That G5 champ then gets entered in to an 8-team playoff with the five P5 champs and two at-large teams.

This format recognizes that winning a G5 conference isn't equal to winning a P5 conference, so the best G5 team has to win more playoff games to get in to the Final 8. And, it does provide every conference team a clear path.

Throw in some wild card games too and you have a winner - to recognize that sitting at home during conference championship weekend...or losing a conference championship game....is not equal to winning a P5 conference championship game.

(12-18-2018 04:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:42 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:25 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  Playoff conference champion seeding wouldn’t care about which “conferences is better,” it would select the ten champions.if AAC champ were to beat ACC champ Pitt in the regular season why would UCF have to go through additional steps? If eleven teams were trash in cusa but FAU was excellent why should they be penalized?

That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

(12-18-2018 03:49 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

How can you say “it guarantees a viable path for every team” when if two G5’s go undefeated one is left out if not ranked high enough?

When the 2018 season began---there was no path for any G5 team. Under the 5-1-2 system, there is a path for every G5 team. The fact that two G5 champs are undefeated---and one is judged better than the other (path #1) does not mean the one not picked had no path. They just werent as good as the other. If that other undefeated G5 can finish high enough, it can get in as wild card. The point is--when the season started they had a path to get into the playoff. The fact that another team from the same group outperformed them does not mean the path was not there.

Think of this way. Essentially, the G5 is being treated as a single power conference and its champ is getting its autobid. The conference has 5 divisions--each of which crowns a champ. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we are forced to utilize a committee to determine the best team in those 5 divisions. Of course it would be better if it could be decided on the field, but its not possible due to time constraints and the fact playing 2 more games would put the banged up winner at a competitive disadvantage.

As Ive said before, the 5-1-2 is a compromise. But where possible, it has addressed the biggest issues facing the CFP, fills the majority of the slate via action on the field of play, provides a legitimate path for every team at the start of the season, and restricts the field enough to fit within the time window available.

With a 16 team playoff G5 would get 5 spots and P5 11 spots. You could have it be for P5 if you make it to the CCG then you are in win or lose. Winning the conference would be a bonus. Plus there would be 1 at large. For G5 only the conference winner gets in.

FBS is two subdivisions pretending to be one division for mutual benefit. Akron gets to pretend they are the same as Alabama for promotional purposes and Alabama gets to pretend beating Akron was a win worthy of Bowl eligibility

But honestly, in this era of the playoffs, the P5 doesn’t need to pretend to get to the meaningless bowls anymore and frankly could separate from the G5 and abolish or lower bowl eligibility requirements and would do this the second the G5 demanded all their champs be given auto bids

(12-18-2018 04:20 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:12 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:42 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  That really doesn't make much sense. E.g., let's imagine if Pitt had upset Clemson and won the ACC title this year. Why should that mean much when evaluating UCF? UCF wasn't the only team that beat Pitt, e.g., North Carolina beat Pitt too, so obviously you didn't have to be that great to beat Pitt this year. Pitt lost 4 games in the regular season.

Remember, if we are going to give auto-bids to *conferences* then we have to evaluate the status of a conference, and G5 conferences are categorically far weaker, so a play-in among them makes sense.

Now, if you think it is unfair for a Great Team stuck in a bad conference to be penalized (and remember, as my Akron example shows, that is very unlikely), then the solution is to dispense with conference auto-bids entirely, and just use humans or computers to rank *teams* and put the 8 or 16 highest-ranked teams in, so that the Mighty Great Akron Team of 2020 that could beat Alabama isn't held back by its conference.

But you can't have your weak conference cake and eat it too.

Auto-bids to the ten conference champions and six at large bids.

Why are you evaluating the status of the conference? FBS has ten conference champions. These teams get auto bids regardless of ups and downs of the conference. This allows every team in FBS to have a clear path to the national championship without humans and computers ranking anything. Luckily for the conferences with multiple strong teams size at large bids can Be utilized by teams of any conference. (Indy teams have an added clause that I’ll get to later)

Because there are no "ups and downs of the conference" between the G5 and P5. Yes, it makes sense to have the ACC and B1G on an equal playoff footing, and the MAC and MWC, because between those pairs, there are "ups and downs" - sometimes the MAC is better than the MWC and vice-versa, sometimes the ACC is better than the B1G, and vice-versa.

But, the MAC is NEVER better than the B1G. Ever. So it makes sense to treat them differently.

My plan does provide a path to the title for every single team in FBS. But it also recognizes that reality, so the path should be longer for the G5 team.

Strength of conference as nothing to do with this. If eleven cusa teams are trash but FAU is excellent FAU gets the conference champion bid into the playoffs. I don’t care area if teams 2-12 of the mac isn’t as good as teams 2-12 of the b1g. The season would start with every team knowing exactly what metric their on field performance would need to meet to gain entry into playoffs. And if the b1g had the top five teams in the country because they are so excellent as an conference they still get one autobid and up to six at large bids.

If you are going to organize a playoff based on bids for conferences, then of course conference strength should have something to do with it. We can't just assume that FAU is "excellent" because they beat a bunch of bad teams in CUSA, that doesn't prove anything.

So we make sure they and whoever else wins the G5 leagues proves it by playing amongst themselves to crown a G5 champ, who then advances to the QFs.

In my system, every team knows exactly what they'd have to do to win the FBS title. In the case of CUSA, it would be win CUSA, then win the G5 semifinal, then the G5 final, then the QFs, Semis, and Finals.

Remember, those G5 playoff games would be real playoff games, they feed right in all the way to the title.

Points for at least creating a path. However again, if UCF as AAC champ has already beaten the ACC champ, why on earth should UCF have to jump through hoops? My 16 team process eliminates biases and feelings regarding who is probably better and who provably faced teams that were tougher. Stop with regulating this magical distinction between P5 and G5 and instead focus on ten teams in FBS with equal paths

The 5+1+2 8 team playoff model is suitable for any team in FBS to get into the playoffs. Fair compromise in my opinion. A Sun Belt or MAC team that goes 13-0 would have a shot even if it's the #8 seed. Most years it would be MWC or AAC though.

(12-18-2018 05:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  FBS is two subdivisions pretending to be one division for mutual benefit. Akron gets to pretend they are the same as Alabama for promotional purposes and Alabama gets to pretend beating Akron was a win worthy of Bowl eligibility

But honestly, in this era of the playoffs, the P5 doesn’t need to pretend to get to the meaningless bowls anymore and frankly could separate from the G5 and abolish or lower bowl eligibility requirements and would do this the second the G5 demanded all their champs be given auto bids

P5 hold all the cards. Why haven't they split if the P5 do not need the G5 anymore?

What nobody mentions is if everyone had a clear path to a championship. Recruiting would change.

You don't think its an advantage when recruiting a player "You don't want to go to that school they will never play for a championship.

The SEC can say win our league and you go play for a championship.

A totally rigged system. Just make it the Alabama Invitational.

Not only are none of the G5 conferences represented. The Pac 12 and Big 10 are not either.

Get it out of a bias committee hands. There is not one member on that committe from a G5 conference.

It would be like the NFL only inviting New England, New Orleans, Dallas and LA to the playoffs every year.

(12-18-2018 05:40 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 05:13 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  FBS is two subdivisions pretending to be one division for mutual benefit. Akron gets to pretend they are the same as Alabama for promotional purposes and Alabama gets to pretend beating Akron was a win worthy of Bowl eligibility

But honestly, in this era of the playoffs, the P5 doesn’t need to pretend to get to the meaningless bowls anymore and frankly could separate from the G5 and abolish or lower bowl eligibility requirements and would do this the second the G5 demanded all their champs be given auto bids

P5 hold all the cards. Why haven't they split if the P5 do not need the G5 anymore?

The current setup of pretending is beneficial to both groups. But if it stopped being beneficial to the P5 then they’d end the charade and officially separate

My issue is this. The strong G5 schools are typically accused, by the P5 supporters, of playing a “weak schedule”. Meanwhile it’s the P5 schools that usually refuse to play the G5 schools on a level playing field.

Which is exactly what the problem is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Why limit the G5 to one bid?

I think 10 team playoff - one bid per conference. Top 6 teams get a bye. Anything else is silly.

I'm old enough to remember when the NFL and the fledgling AFL were two separate and distinct entities, and the NFL looked down its nose at the AFL and refused to play AFL teams. The two leagues had their own championships. Then folks began wondering how the NFL and AFL champions would stack up against one another, and Joe Namath and his NY Jets answered that question.

Just because some network has determined that some conferences are more marketable than others doesn't mean that they play better football. There are G5 teams that could beat the socks off many P5 teams without breaking a sweat. And just maybe, a few could beat the socks off the best of the P5.

Folks will always wonder...

(12-18-2018 05:37 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  The 5+1+2 8 team playoff model is suitable for any team in FBS to get into the playoffs. Fair compromise in my opinion. A Sun Belt or MAC team that goes 13-0 would have a shot even if it's the #8 seed. Most years it would be MWC or AAC though.

Not a clear path for every team. Not interested in terms like “would have a shot.” There are ten FBS conferences. Leave the beauty contest aspects to the six at large bids.

(12-18-2018 06:13 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Why limit the G5 to one bid?

I think 10 team playoff - one bid per conference. Top 6 teams get a bye. Anything else is silly.

I like 16 - 10+6 because if the SEC literally has the “best” four teams in the nation then let them all in. Six spots for the best non champions however the beauty contest folks wanna hash out

(12-18-2018 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:49 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

How can you say “it guarantees a viable path for every team” when if two G5’s go undefeated one is left out if not ranked high enough?

When the 2018 season began---there was no path for any G5 team. Under the 5-1-2 system, there is a path for every G5 team. The fact that two G5 champs are undefeated---and one is [b]judged [\b]better than the other (path #1) does not mean the one not picked had no path. They [b]just werent as good as the other[\b]. If they the other undefeated G5 can finish high enough, it can get in as wild card. The point is--when the season started they had a path to get into the playoff. The fact that another team from the same group outperformed them does not mean the path was not there.

Think of this way. Essentially, the G5 is being treated as a single power conference and its champ is getting its autobid. The conference has 5 divisions--each of which crowns a champ. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, we are forced to utilize a committee to determine the best team in those 5 divisions. Of course it would be better if it could be decided on the field, but its not possible due to time constraints and the fact playing 2 more games would put the banged up winner at a competitive disadvantage.

As Ive said before, the 5-1-2 is a compromise. But where possible, it has addressed the biggest issues facing the CFP, fills the majority of the slate via action on the field of play, provides a legitimate path for every team at the start of the season, and restricts the field enough to fit within the time window available.

Are you kidding? Judged? Words like judged are the exact biases that needs to be eliminated.

“Just weren’t as good as the other”?! Based on what? Beauty contest? Comparing the undefeated body of work of Fresno versus the undefeated body of work of Houston? Get out with that nonsense. There are ten FBS conferences ten autobids and six at large.

(12-18-2018 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:49 PM)the1sttransport Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-18-2018 02:59 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  5+1+2 solves this, honestly.

I guess theoretically two or more G5 teams could go undefeated, but we rarely ever see that and the last two instances I can remember were when the WAC was in existence.

Yes, that would suck for one of those 2 undefeated G5's (maybe they get lucky and squeeze in as a widlcard)--but I think the 5+1+2 is still the best all around format by a wide margin. Every playoff format will have a flaw--but the 5+1+2 addresses all of the most pressing issues while still constricting the playoff field to a manageable number. It guarantees a viable path for every team. It maintains the sanctity of the regular season. It makes every P5 conference race important and elevates every P5 CCG to virtual playoff game status. For those that prefer subjective measures---it guarantees that no matter what happens in the CCG's---the Committee's #1 and #2 teams WILL ALWAYS make the playoff field (which is all we had for years under the BCS). Its really a very elegant and attractive system for a compromise that contains something of value for everyone--including the fans.

How can you say “it guarantees a viable path for every team” when if two G5’s go undefeated one is left out if not ranked high enough?

When the 2018 season began---there was no path for any G5 team. Under the 5-1-2 system, there is a path for every G5 team. The fact that two G5 champs are undefeated---and one is judged better than the other (path #1) does not mean the one not picked had no path.

Actually, by the very same standards you use to claim that UCF has no path to the CFP playoffs, it means exactly that.