you're saying two different things here.Watch what they do, not what they say. We've already seen the CFP committee give preference to Conference Champions in the past by ****ting on the Big 12 (TCU) a few years back because they don't have a CCG. Of course, they aren't going to reveal their selection criteria and what is weighted. They are leaving themselves as many "outs" as possible to justify whoever they put in the final four.
preference to a champion is one thing. preference to a conference which has a CCG is another.
that being said, it's my belief that what help the XII back two years ago was not lack of a CCG, it was lack of a conference champion (created by their commish changing the rules in the middle of the season). I still don't think Baylor had as strong a case as the other four, however, and acknowledge the SoS benefit from the other's CCGs was a factor.
I don't believe the committee gives a **** whether a conference has a CCG or declares their champion based on final standings. I do believe that the extra CCG gives those conference champions an SoS boost, however, but don't think the committee has ever indicated their considered the CCG heavier than any other game against a highly ranked opponent.
i understand why many feel that history suggests they do consider conference championships heavier. However, this is the first year where a non-conf champ has a really strong a case to be in the top four.
so, does anyone have a source for suggesting conference championships weigh more than the other criteria?