Bronco's points were (because he was asked specific questions by Rome)

1- Rome asked him "Do you feel the playoff system is inclusionary or exclusionary? Bronco answered. The playoff is exclusionary... Do you disagree? He went on to talk about how the P5 conferences have the money and being a part of those conferences is more about the money than what happens on the field. If it was different BYU would be included. He went on to say it would be interesting to see what will happen with a team like BYU, if they go undefeated with the strong schedule we play if we would be included. What do you disagree with?

2- Rome followed that up with the question; Are you confident there will be a seat for you at the table if you do go undefeated. Bronco said he wasn't confident there would be a spot for them in the playoff, but that you can't predict what will happen. He said that BYU will do its best to play our way in, and he said his team has been told they are part of a 12 game play in to an exclusionary system. Which part do you disagree with?

I just don't see anything that is as egregious as you seem to think. He answered the direct questions very clearly and nowhere did he say anything about needing to be undefeated 2 years in a row. He didn't disparage BYU's chances to get in the playoff, he simply stated that he was not confident that BYU would be included, but it would be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion if Bronco had said "Yes I am fully confident that BYU will receive an invite to the playoff if we go undefeated." he would have looked like a fool who is completely out of touch with the landscape of college football as it is now.

He came across as knowledgeable and not afraid to call a spade a spade. In fact Rome thanked him for his forthright answers. That is how you gain the respect of interviewers, give them answers without all of the lame coach speak.