matters, then you might see why giving 1 spot to the G5s may not be enough. It may even be similar to what the NCAA was doing with the TV contracts prior to Oklahoma and Georgia suing the NCAA and SCOTUS ruling in favor of the schools in NCAA vs. Oklahoma (1984). Remember the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 says that "innocent monopolies," or monopolies achieved based on merit are legal. However, acts to artificially preserve that status are not legal.

One could argue by giving the 5 power conferences automatic bids, then it could qualify as an act to artificially preserve the status that P5s are "more deserving" of participating in the Playoffs than the G5s even though there are not enough OOC games played among the 10 FBS conferences to support that conclusion. Also, there is always the possibility that the 5 G5 conferences could have at least 1 member ranked higher than the highest ranked member from the 5 P5 conferences. Heck you could even make the argument that giving the automatic bids to all 5 P5 conferences eliminates the incentive for the teams to try to finish the season ranked as high as possible.

The incentive now becomes win your conference and make the Playoffs regardless of your overall record and final regular season ranking. It may even support the idea that it is an artificial act to reinforce the perceived status quo (P5 football is "more deserving" than G5 football). Instead of supporting the idea that all 10 FBS conferences are equally deserving of the opportunity to participate in the Playoffs. If all the bids in the Playoffs are at-large bids, then all 10 FBS conferences have an equal opportunity to earn at least 1 bid at the beginning of the season.