What could change the proposal?

• Freeze the season’s official selection ranking, access rules, pre-title ranking, and completed results. Do not use subsequent bowl results to improve the selection-date résumé.
• Show every entrant on both sides. Identify six additions only when the original twelve are all retained; otherwise disclose additions and removals separately.
• For every added team, record selection-date wins and losses, best victories and their same-date opponent ranks, schedule context with its source and definition, conference, champion status, and actual postseason destination.
• Apply champion access and pre-title benefit claims explicitly. A protected entry round does not rewrite the underlying order. Report capacity conflicts rather than silently dropping a claim.
• Use committee order for the primary access comparison, not a retroactive current ranking formula. Any separate model-based comparison must name its version, inputs, cutoff, and selection differences.
• Publish team rows, sources, and denominators. Compare the added group’s record and wins with the baseline’s lower entrants; inspect access concentration by conference. Do not introduce a minimum-win rule without showing whom it would wrongly exclude or include.

Reasons to reconsider eighteen: repeatedly thin résumés among the additions, little competitive benefit, access concentrated in already dominant conferences, or an unacceptable extra-game burden. Do not count a predicted upset probability as a past accomplishment.

• For every entrant, show the last actual game date, whether it played a conference title game, proposed first playoff date, and elapsed calendar days. Separate title participants from nonparticipants.
• Show every possible advancing path: intervals between games, travel legs, exam or break conflicts, and minimum/maximum total games. The Christmas no-game window is not automatically time off from practice.
• Report practice exposure, protected recovery, travel time, and preparation as separate inputs. Unknown values stay unknown. Athlete and medical review is required; a website model cannot certify a safe interval.
• Test no rest effect, a benefit from extra rest, and a possible cost from long layoffs as explicitly labeled sensitivity assumptions. Do not fit those effects to a few winners and call the result causal.
• An eighteen-team, one-bye alternative first needs a complete bracket, champion-access allocation, and feasible dates. Removing a double bye from this bracket does not create a working alternative. Keep the neutral-site title in all like-for-like comparisons.

Reasons to reconsider the double bye: credible multi-season evidence of a competitive disadvantage, athlete-led review finding the recovery/practice arrangement unacceptable, or an arithmetically feasible alternative preserving the reward with less burden. Any policy change needs Alec’s explicit decision after review.

Compare low, central, and high scenarios for cash the school actually retains: distributions and retained ticket revenue, less hosting, security, staffing, travel, insurance, lodging holds, standby, and cancellation costs. Name who keeps each revenue stream and who bears each downside. Gross attendance and local spending are not school net income.

Keep alumni and donor-market access separate from immediate cash. A destination may matter to a school’s supporters; no invented dollar value is assigned to those relationships.

Choose contrasting campuses and verify their registrar-published exams, break, and return dates. Each case must document student tickets and prices, housing, dining, transport, staffing, accessibility, funding, a responsible decision owner, readiness deadline, and fallback. Use the existing hosting standard—not a competing second set of rules.

The proposed CFP route is campus opening round → six premier bowls → campus quarterfinals → campus semifinals → neutral championship. The six bowl names remain; their dates, matchups, contracts, audiences, and economics are not thereby guaranteed.

The proposal reduces the remaining traditional bowl tier to roughly eight to twelve voluntary games outside both tournament fields. The separate National Tournament also draws teams away from the traditional bowl pool. Those are real tradeoffs.

The published venue comparison identifies one of the Alamo Bowl’s two 2024 participants displaced by expansion, and neither of its 2025 participants under the stated protection interpretation. Other bowls’ affected participant slots are listed too. Replacement matchups, financial effects and operator agreements remain unresolved.

Give each unfamiliar reader one minute on the short guide, then hide the page. Record their answers before explaining anything:

1. How many teams qualify?
2. What does skipping two rounds mean, and can championship protection change who receives that benefit?
3. What happens to an upset winner’s rank? When are opponents paired again?
4. Is this the current CFP system or a proposal?

Record correct, partial, or mistaken answers by question, including the reader’s actual misunderstanding and device. Report the count out of five, not a public-support percentage. Revise the confusing passage and retest with new readers. Five readers check usability, not representativeness or endorsement.

The short route now explains skipping rounds, shows three paths and walks through both reseeds. The full book stays available. Quick playoff overview →

Still to check: whether five unfamiliar readers can explain it in their own words. None has completed that test yet.

The two historical fields show the additions’ records, victories, losses and destinations beside the lower actual entrants. The findings now make the limits of the sporting case visible. Review the mixed findings →

Still to check: more seasons, full schedule context and the added competitive value. Bracket arithmetic alone does not answer deservingness.

Every historical entrant has an actual last-game date and two proposed calendar placements, with advancing game totals. The existing reseeding audit remains available with its limits. Inspect the dates →

Still to check: practice, travel, recovery and credible evidence about long layoffs. No rest effect has been established.

A three-case calculator now separates school-retained cash from costs and records the source, payer and downside owner. Campus cases connect actual exam and return dates to existing hosting requirements. Compare school cash → · Check student access →

Still to check: school-specific contracts and costs, funded break services, named decision owners and signed readiness commitments.

The venue map and Alamo case identify actual participant displacement and the reduced optional bowl tier. They link to the proposed transition. Read the bowl impact →

Still to check: replacement matchups, operator agreement, rights, funding and community effects.

The guide now offers direct routes to one football rule, student access or a bowl case. Future contact should begin with a verified issue relevant to the recipient. Interest in home games or reseeding does not imply support for the whole proposal.

Still to check: relevance with each recipient. This website revision does not send messages or establish a successful outreach strategy.