You’re all making assumptions (which may prove to be true, or they may not) about what the CFP committee will do and how it will be soooo much different than what it has previously done.

But you have no meaningful data (just assumptions and arguments) to back up your stance. Another reasonable POV is that the CFP committee will do things pretty similarly to how it has done them in the past, even acknowledging that some things have changed.

I agree and so does the post you’re responding to that things may have changed, but how much? You don’t know that and neither do I. Best practice is not to be too dogmatic about it then. Just acknowledge we are all speculating.

And it isn’t obvious what will happen yet. For example, the fact that the B1G/SEC are lobbying for auto bids suggest they think there is a good chance the CFP committee WILL NOT change the way it has done things in the past and therefore are looking for a guarantee.

Or you could take it as evidence that the CFP committee will change the way it has looked at teams in favor of the B1G/SEC because that is their demand/expectation.

Both are reasonable POVs. No need to act like they aren’t or to bust somebody’s chops like they don’t get something that they have clearly explained they DO get.