This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

5 of the 6 conference champs you cited would have missed by tf86

The CFP. Granted, the CFP Committee didn't exist prior to the 2014 season, but if we substituted the BCS Rankings (which did exist, and which basically served the same function as CFP Committee):

2020 Oregon: Finished #25. #12 Coastal Carolina would have claimed final AQ bid.

2018 Washington: Finished #9 and would have qualified for CFP. Would have faced #8 Central Florida in first round, followed by #1 Alabama if they advanced.

2012 Wisconsin: Unranked in final BCS standings and would have missed CFP. More on this season later.

2008 Virginia Tech: Finished #19 in final BCS standings and would have missed CFP. While conference alignment differed significantly back then from present day, AQ bids would have gone to #1 Oklahoma (Big 12), #2 Florida (SEC), #5 USC (Pac-10), #6 Utah (MWC), #8 Penn State (Big Ten) and #9 Boise State (WAC). Another conference champ, Cincinnati (Big East) would have earned final at-large bid at #12.

2005 Florida State: Finished #22 in final BCS standings and would have missed CFP. AQ bids would have gone to #1 USC (Pac-10), #2 Texas (Big 12), #3 Penn State (Big Ten), #7 Georgia (SEC), #11 West Virginia (Big East) and #14 TCU (MWC). Ironically, two teams from Florida State's conference, Miami and Virginia Tech, would have earned at-large bids in the CFP, along with Ohio State, Oregon, ND, and Auburn.

2004 Pitt: Finished #21 in final BCS standings and would have missed CFP. AQ bids would have gone to #1 USC (Pac-10), #2 Oklahoma (Big 12), #3 Auburn (SEC), #6 Utah (MWC), #8 Virginia Tech (ACC, their inaugural season in that conference) and #9 Boise State (WAC). In addition, another conference champ, #10 Louisville (C-USA, their final season in that conference) would have claimed an at-large bid.

Now, back to 2012. That season provides the greatest real-world critique of the proposed model going forward. Had that model been in place back then, here's how the CFP would have looked (final BCS ranking in parentheses):

#1 Alabama AQ, SEC (2)
#2 Oregon AQ, Pac-10 (4)
#3 Kansas State AQ, Big XII (5)
#4 Florida State, AQ, ACC (12)
#5 Notre Dame, at-large (1)
#6 Florida, at-large (3)
#7 Stanford, at-large (6)
#8 Georgia, at-large (7)
#9 LSU, at-large (8)
#10 Texas A&M, at-large (9)
#11 Northern Illinois AQ, MAC (15)
#12 Boise State AQ, MWC (19)

Obviously, Florida State getting the #4 seed despite an overall ranking of 12 is the biggest problem, particularly given that (1) all at-large teams were actually ranked above Florida State), and (2) due to the nature of AQ bids, two higher-ranked teams (South Carolina and Oklahoma) than Florida State miss the CFP altogether. Boise State at #19 is low, although not worlds apart from Boise State 2014 (20), Houston 2015 (18) or Memphis 2019 (16).

Of course, that is not an argument that the proposed field is too large. Rather, that is an argument that the proposal, at least potentially, is too solicitous to conference champions.