Guide Links

Introduction here
Flaws of current system
On Autobids and conference championship games

Playoff plans:
Main 16 team playoff plan
Alternate 8 team playoff plan

On Automatic bids and conference championship games.

In this post, I want to explain why automatic bids for conference champions make sense for a playoff and why football conference championship games no longer continue. I've touched on these things in other posts but I think it merits a lengthier explanation.
Automatic bids:

For me, the 2014-15 college football season is a good example of why automatic bids for conference champions make sense.
Coming into bowl season, the top 6 teams in the country(according to the playoff commitee's rankings) were (in order from 1 to 6): Alabama, Oregon, Florida St, Ohio State, Baylor and TCU. All of these teams had at least 1 loss(other than unbeaten Florida State). Only 4 of these teams were to be given a chance at the championship due to to  currently flawed system. Baylor and TCU were the teams left out. When the playoff matchups were announced, I was confident that Alabama would dominate Ohio State and that Oregon would do the same to Oregon. But before the playoffs even started, something interesting happened. TCU played their bowl game against Mississippi, a team that had beaten Alabama and top 10 Mississippi State. TCU won the game convincingly 42-3. It seemed entirely possible that TCU could have been the best team in the country but didn't even have a chance to win the championship because of 1 loss on the road against a top 10 team. Yet, Alabama, Oregon and Ohio State got in with worse losses. Nonetheless, Oregon destroyed a previously unbeaten but overrated Florida State team. But the Ohio State-Alabama game produced what seemed to be a shocker. Ohio State outplayed Alabama thoroughly and managed to win the game. But was it really an upset? It seemed that Alabama was the country's best team, but was that just a narrative given by the media(known for it's SEC bias)? After all, the media has a huge influence on public opinion. Though there's still a title game to be played, are all the questions answered?Who really is the best team in the country, truly deserving of the national title? Is it Ohio State, who ultimately was the title game winner? Or is it TCU? It seems that every year this question could be legitimately asked at the end of many if not most college football seasons and even the current playoff system hasn't changed that.
Now you are probably wondering what this has to do with automatic bids. But allow me to ask you this question: Who is the best team in the Pac-12? That's easy: Oregon. Who is the best team in the Big Ten: Ohio State. SEC? Alabama. Sun Belt? Georgia Southern. America's Conference? Marshall. Etc. Etc. Even when the answer less clear like the B12(TCU or Baylor) or the AAC(Memphis or UCF). There are clear tiebreakers(ie. Baylor beat TCU and UCF lost to 2-10 UCONN vs Memphis losing to bowl bound Houston, edge to Memphis). The best tiebreakers are usually 1. Head to head 2. Worst loss 3. +/- (It's pretty much PointsFor minus PointsAgainst) . The point is that is almost always much easier to effectively determine who's the best team in a conference versus who are the best 4(or 8) teams in the country.
But why is that? It's because teams play more conference games(8 or 9 of them) than non-conference games(3 or 4 of them). And most of the best teams in the country play insignificant games in the non-conference. Most non-conference schedules are soft. The best teams in the country rarely play against each other in the non-conference portion of the schedule. So how do we determine which teams are the best in the entire country? Mostly on a lot of assumptions, which may or may not be true. But after 8(or 9) conference games, the picture of who is the best team in a particular conference is very clear. And it is based on the games that are actually played, not assumptions or biases.
That is why the automatic bids for each conference champion make sense, it leaves less room for error vs basing things on the national picture. Media analysts and "experts"(including the college football selection committee) act like the national picture if always obvious but it's usually  it's very unclear. If the national picture was as clear as some think it is, the committee would have let TCU in the playoff in place of Alabama. But instead, they had Alabama as the best team in the country and seemed justified in doing so. If one of my college football playoff plans(either the main one or the alternate) were in place, Alabama would be in as the SEC champion and TCU would certainly have gotten an at-large bid. Teams would be able to prove themselves on the field in meaningful games.

Conference championship games
If college football playoffs are to be expanded, conference championship games should be dropped. Automatic bids into the playoff for conference champs would already make up for any financial reason to keep the champs games(playoffs will be lucrative). Regardless, conference championship games are usually unnecessary. They're based on splitting up conferences into divisions and giving the division title winners a game to win the conference championship. It's usually pointless as it's almost always clear who is the best team in the conference is and this is usually an extra game for a fluke result to lead to an undeserving conference champion(like an 8-4(5-3) team beating an 11-1(8-0) team to get the crown). It makes no sense, after playing 8 or even 9 conference games in a 14 team conference, that the conference title is determined by 1 extra game, often when it's clear which team is better/more deserving. Sure there are examples when there are evenly matched conference championship games (two 11-1(7-1) teams matchup for an exciting game), but those aren't common enough. I'd rather solve it with the aforementioned tiebreaker.

Alternate College Football playoff plan

This is the alternate plan. The main plan is here. I believe the main plan is better than the alternate plan but the alternate plan is pretty good as well. Alternate plan is also more likely to be implemented.
Here it is:
6 Automatic bids. (1 for each winner of a power 5 conference(Big Ten,SEC,ACC,B12,P12) as well as 1 automatic bid for the strongest team(has to still be a conference champion) of the group of 5(non power 5) conferences(not including independent teams, which will have to rely on at-large.). The "strongest" non power 5 champion would be determined by selection committee.
2 At-Large bids, determined by selection committee(or maybe because it's only 2 it could be determined by a computer formula or a poll. This part is flexible.)
Rest of teams get bowl games.
Committee seeds teams from 1(best) to 8(worst). 1 plays 8. 2 plays 7. 3 plays 8 and so on. Typical 8 team bracket(like NBA playoffs), winner of 1v8 plays winner of 4v5 and so on.
Optional: First round games are home games for higher seed(perhaps even played before bowl season). Semifinal games tied in with major Jan 1st bowls like current system. Final game played on usual date(2nd monday on january). 
Optional:  Remove conference championship games(so conference champ game loser doesn't get punished for losing when it comes to at-large bids. The leagues themselves will determine tie breakers)

My defense of this proposal:
For giving autobid to best of group of 5 conference conference champion: Non power schools have always had biases work against them. For the sake of fairness, they should be given a shot. It erases all doubt for an elite midmajor school, particularly one that goes unbeaten. Time and time, again many of these non-power schools have proven themselves against big time competition. They deserve a shot and if the best midmajor conference champion isn't a strong team, then consider it a reward for the number 1 team in the country. Best team in the country is rewarded with a 1st round breather.

Criticisms for this plan and the responses to it would be similar for the ones for the other one. If anyone finds one specifically for this one. Send it my way through the comments or something. If you want to see those criticisms and my responses, just click the link to the other plan and scroll down.

How this format solves the flaw of  "the possibility that the best team that is undefeated and postseason eligible not getting a shot at a title": It doesn't solve the problem as well as the other plan. For example: two unbeaten non-power conference champions, 1 gets the autobid. But the other played too weak of a schedule and is left out. Turns out the other team was legit(and could have been best in country; perhaps they dominated a bowl game against very good competition) and the team that got in got destroyed. But it would be a major step in the right direction, nonetheless and it would even the discrimination against mid-majors that is unique to college football.(It's strange that college basketball embraces the mid-major and gives them a shot at it all. And it makes the postseason much more exciting, when those small conference teams make runs. An AAC team won the college basketball title in 2014, albeit a traditional powerhouse AAC team. I digress.) 

Sample College Football Playoff(using 2014 season excluding Conference championship games):
Automatic Bids: Alabama(SEC), Baylor(B12 tiebreaker;Baylor beat TCU ), Ohio State(B10), Oregon(P12),  Florida State(ACC),Boise State(Mtn West, highest ranked non power 5)
At-Large Bids(trying to think like commitee)- TCU, Mississippi State(SEC bias)
 Snubs(aka potential complainers with sort of decent argument): 
Arizona(Response: Loss to USC is not a bad loss but worse than Miss St losses...I guess. Probably should be in with a win over Oregon but SEC bias is real.)
Michigan State(Response: No bad losses but no notable wins either)
Georgia Tech(Response: Lost to two basketball schools)
Wisconsin (Response: Lost to 7 loss Northwestern)
 Missouri(Response: lost to 8 loss Indiana at home LOL)

Seedings/First round matchups(trying to seed/rank them like the committee would):
1.Alabama vs 8.Boise State
2.Oregon vs 7. Mississippi State
3.Florida State vs 6.TCU
4.Ohio State vs 5. Baylor

My comments: I like my main proposal better(more great teams, more chances for great upsets) but this wouldn't be so bad. If Boise would upset 'Bama, it would be monumental. And after seeing the results of the 2014-15 bowl season, with Alabama's overrated defense being torched by Ohio State and Boise defeating a very good Arizona team, that kind of upset could happen. Boise would then be one more upset away from a "Cinderella" run to the title game. The other matchups are great(especially without using hindsight vision) and it would be an improvement over the current system.