Given:

ACC champion Duke goes 8–5, wins the league, but is left out of the 12-team playoff. Miami goes 10–2, does not make the ACC title game, but gets an at-large bid. Tulane and James Madison, both Group of 5 champions, do get playoff auto-bids. Notre Dame goes 10–2 and is left out.

So the final field has:

No ACC champion (Duke out), One ACC at-large (Miami in), Two G5 champs (Tulane & JMU in), No Notre Dame, despite a 10–2 record.

Below is a revised risk assessment and what reforms people will start screaming for.

I. Risk Assessment: Who’s Mad, and Why

1. ACC Institutional Crisis

Risk level: Very high

From the ACC’s perspective, the message is brutal:

“Your champion is not playoff-worthy, but your runner-up who didn’t even win the division is.”

Consequences:

Humiliation for Duke: An 8–5 record with a league title but no playoff bid makes Duke look like a fluke champion and weakens its national stature. Legitimacy hit for the ACC as a whole: If the committee believes two G5 champs are more deserving than the ACC champ, it signals that the ACC is viewed closer to a “tweener” league than a peer to the SEC/B1G. Internal tension: Duke can complain that winning the league should mean something. Miami can be resented for “benefiting from the system” while not playing in (or risking losing) the ACC title game. Exit pressure: Schools like FSU/Clemson/UNC get yet another data point: “This league is not respected; we need out.”

2. ACC Title Game Devaluation

Risk level: High

If Miami makes the playoff without playing in the ACC title, while Duke wins the title and misses, then:

Coaches and ADs will quietly ask if making the title game is actually a risk: Win and you’re in. Lose and you’ve added a third loss you didn’t need. This fuels cynical strategic thinking: “Is it better to be 10–2 sitting home ranked #10 than 10–3 as the loser of the ACC title game ranked #15?”

That undermines the point of the conference championship itself.

3. Notre Dame’s Structural Vulnerability

Risk level: Very high

Notre Dame now sees:

Two G5 champs (Tulane, JMU) get auto-bids. An ACC at-large (Miami) gets in without winning the league. The ACC champ (Duke) and an elite independent (Notre Dame) both sit home.

This reinforces a brutal conclusion:

“If you’re not in a conference and you’re not a G5 champ, you’re purely at the mercy of committee politics and math games at the margins.”

For Notre Dame:

Independence = no guaranteed path. They can be leapfrogged from all sides: G5 champs via auto-bids. P5 at-larges from leagues the committee likes more. Their margin for error is essentially one loss — sometimes zero.

That will intensify internal debate at Notre Dame about whether independence is still viable in this format.

4. G5–P5 Political Tension

Risk level: Medium–High

If Tulane and JMU both make it as champions, while the ACC champ and Notre Dame are excluded:

G5 commissioners: “This proves we belong.” P5 powers (especially SEC/B1G): “This is exactly what we warned you about.”

Result:

Expect loud calls from power conferences to reduce or tighten G5 auto-bids: minimum ranking thresholds, fewer AQ slots, or folding G5 into a different access structure.

5. Fan and Media Perception of “Broken Logic”

Risk level: High

The storyline writes itself:

“Duke wins ACC and gets nothing.” “Miami misses the championship, but makes the playoff.” “G5 champs in; Notre Dame out.”

Even if you can rationalize it with rankings and metrics, the optics are incoherent. Once casual fans decide the system is “dumb,” the pressure to fix it skyrockets.

II. Likely Changes People Will Demand

Let’s break it down into what each bloc wants and what reforms are most likely.

1. From the ACC: “Protect the Champion”

The ACC’s leadership will argue something like:

“If our champ is ranked within a certain range, they should not be left out while a non-champ from our own league gets in.”

So they will push for:

Minimum protection for Power 4 champions: E.g., “Any P4 champion ranked in the Top 15 is automatically in.” Or hard guarantee: “All P4 champions are in, period, regardless of record/ranking.”

Problem: SEC/B1G aren’t going to give equal weight to a league they see as weaker, so ACC’s leverage is limited.

2. From Notre Dame: “More At-Large Slots and Less Auto-Bid Clutter”

Notre Dame’s logical priorities:

Fewer locked-in auto-bids for G5 and weaker champs. More flexibility for at-large spots. Possibly special independent access language, like: “An independent ranked above any auto-qualifier must be in the field,” or at least clarified criteria that don’t let 10–2 ND be boxed out by a pile of lower-rated champions.

Notre Dame’s argument will likely be framed as:

“We’re not asking for special treatment; we’re asking for a format where truly better teams aren’t squeezed out by technicalities.”

3. From SEC & Big Ten: “Stop Wasting Spots on Weak Champs”

The SEC and Big Ten care about:

Getting as many of their teams in as possible. Ensuring that matchups are high-rated and “premium.”

They will not like a system where:

ACC champ is out, ACC at-large is in, G5 champs are in, and a ratings draw like Notre Dame is out.

Their likely asks:

Minimum ranking thresholds for all conference champions Example: “No champion below #15 or #16 in the CFP rankings qualifies automatically.” Reduction in number of auto-bids From six to four or even three. Seeding changes Even if champs get in, they’re not automatically seeded above obviously better teams.

4. From G5: “Do Not Touch Our Access”

G5 leagues will cling to:

“This year proves we can compete.” “We earned it on the field.” “You promised access when you sold this format.”

They will push hard against:

Fewer auto-bids. Higher ranking thresholds that would usually exclude them.

They lack raw power but will play the equity and promise-keeping card.

III. Concrete Reform Ideas That Will Be Floated

Reform A: Ranking Threshold for Auto-Bids

Likely: Very High

“Conference champions must finish in the Top X to receive an auto-bid.”

For example:

Top 12, or Top 15.

This would:

Make it much harder for a weak 8–5 champ to be stiffed and then complain — if they’re ranked #20, their case is weaker. Force G5 champs to be genuinely strong to get in. Reserve more room for at-large teams like Notre Dame and Miami.

Reform B: Fewer Guaranteed Auto-Bids

Likely: High

Instead of six auto-bids:

Drop it to four (P4 champs only), or Keep a variable G5 slot that only activates if a G5 champ is ranked above some threshold.

Net result:

More at-large room for Notre Dame / Miami / SEC-B1G runner-ups.

Reform C: Independent / “Top Non-Champ” Protection

Likely: Medium–High

Something like:

“The highest-ranked non-champion in the country cannot be excluded unless they are outside the Top 10/12.” Or a clause that ensures: If an independent (i.e., Notre Dame) is ranked above any auto-bid team, they cannot be excluded.

This would be a quiet, technical way of preventing exactly the “ND out, G5 champs + mid-level champs in” mess.

Reform D: Explicit Protection for Conference Champs and At-Large Quality

Likely: Medium

For example:

“All Power 4 champs are guaranteed consideration, but not guaranteed inclusion unless they meet ranking norms.” “No conference is guaranteed more than X automatic spots; all additional teams must be at-large.”

This tries to balance:

Duke-type scenarios, Miami-type at-large cases, and Notre Dame/G5 tensions.

Reform E: Slight Expansion (14 or 16 Teams) to Absorb Political Conflicts

Likely: Medium

An expansion to 14 or 16 could be sold as:

Solving the Notre Dame / G5 / ACC champ squeeze. Adding more TV inventory. Reducing outrage when a 10–2 team like ND is excluded while some oddball champ sneaks in.

But if they do this without fixing auto-bid logic, you just get a bigger broken system.

IV. Summary of the Main Fallout

Given:

8–5 Duke wins the ACC but misses the playoff, 10–2 Miami (no title game) gets in, Tulane & JMU (G5 champs) get in, 10–2 Notre Dame stays home—

The main perceived failures are:

ACC title game looks structurally pointless or actively risky. Notre Dame’s independence looks structurally punished. Two G5 auto-bids feel like a luxury the system can’t afford if quality P4 teams are out. Fans and media start calling the system “rigged” or “nonsensical,” even if you can justify it on paper.

So the most likely reforms people will seriously push are:

A ranking floor for auto-bids (no more very-low-ranked champs walking into the field). A reduction in total guaranteed auto-bids, especially for G5. Some form of protection for the highest-ranked non-champ / independent, which in practice means Notre Dame. Possibly bracket expansion once TV realizes how angry people are.