I don't think it matters as much with it limited to conference champions. There are only 5 teams eligible for it. If it came down to a TCU or Tech at 4 and Ohio St at 5, they will come up with some other reason that Ohio St will jump to 4 in the polls. So it may be a factor only in very limited situation of a Big 12 champ vs PAC champ, where the Big 12 is sitting or playing Kansas while a PAC team plays a championship game to move from 5 to 4.
Playoff Expansion seems inevitable, my money was not on 12 teams
- Thread starter NYC Horned Frog
- Start date
I don't think it matters as much with it limited to conference champions. There are only 5 teams eligible for it. If it came down to a TCU or Tech at 4 and Ohio St at 5, they will come up with some other reason that Ohio St will jump to 4 in the polls. So it may be a factor only in very limited situation of a Big 12 champ vs PAC champ, where the Big 12 is sitting or playing Kansas while a PAC team plays a championship game to move from 5 to 4.
That last sentence is so accurate.
The byes are also a way to help prevent a lower money conference from making the championship game. Can't have someone from the AAC or MWC win a championship as that would hurt the prestige and image of the ACC, Big 10 etc.. The other conferences have a shot, but it is much harder to win the title with the extra game. The lack of depth, by not having 4 stars at the 3rd and 4th string position, will show with the extra game against playoff level teams.
Let me understand…they want to guarantee a G5 cannot win the title, so the system they’re changing to guarantees their inclusion? That’s what you’re saying?
I assume you are responding to my post since you are right below mine and did not quote anyone else.
Making up things about what I said is sad. You should reread. I said nothing about "guarantee a G5 cannot win the title". You can still let people play, but stack the deck against them to make it "much harder", thus it preserves their dominance, but gives the appearance of equal inclusion. Apparently you are the masses that will believe all is equal on the playing field.
The world is not black and white but many shades of grey which people try to manipulate for their own advantage.
Which system do you thing the G5’s prefer, this proposal or the current 4-team playoff?
Reading comprehension is an issue.
No one here is advocating for a 4 team playoff. FYI, the current system is a 4 team invitational, not playoff.
Last edited:
I don't like the byes. Giving Alabama, Clemson, OSU and OU a week off to rest and prepare for a lower ranked opponent is way too much. Like tax relief for the ultra rich.
Eight teams, P5 champs and next three highest ranked teams. No committee. Three weeks of playoffs, 7 games should generate plenty of income. Usual bowls for the rest of the teams.
Eight teams, P5 champs and next three highest ranked teams. No committee. Three weeks of playoffs, 7 games should generate plenty of income. Usual bowls for the rest of the teams.
Have you looked at the AAC?
Westernmost team is smu. Their division would be Tulsa, Memphis, UH, Tulane and the ponies.
MWC is as good in FB (or would be with byu) and much better for olympic sports. Plus the hate is already there. The AAC would have a learning curve for byu hate. Just another 6 months or so, but still.
There's been some more "informed" speculation about what the proposed new format that the task force recommended would mean in terms of money and timing. (It comes from a Jon Wilner article in the San Jose Mercury News, which you'd need to pay for so I won't link it). What's driving all this is the desire to quickly recoup the anticipated losses from COVID - basically, the only thing that stayed the same was the TV revenue and in-game stadium and related revenue all fell precipitously and is expected to rebound only slowly this year. Currently, P5 conferences make about $9 million per school (that varies based on conference size and the Big 12 has an advantage) from the playoff TV deals - that is expected to increase to a whopping $27 million per school with the proposed new deal. That's a tripling of revenue; which explains the positive feedback and momentum from sources you might not reasonably expect otherwise. It would, of course, all have to be negotiated but the speculation is that there would be 6 shares - 1 each for the P5 conferences and 1 for the G5 conferences (we'll see...).
They want to do this quickly! Under the existing arrangements, they can't do it for this year or next year, so 2023 is the targeted date if negotiations and details could be finalized for that timeframe.
If this is all true (big caveat), this is even better news for TCU (although fans won't see the money). Not only would the Frogs have a vastly improved chance of making the playoffs (we've qualified 8 out of the past 25 years), the school and the conference would make lots more money and that would result in decreasing pressure for conference realignment.
They want to do this quickly! Under the existing arrangements, they can't do it for this year or next year, so 2023 is the targeted date if negotiations and details could be finalized for that timeframe.
If this is all true (big caveat), this is even better news for TCU (although fans won't see the money). Not only would the Frogs have a vastly improved chance of making the playoffs (we've qualified 8 out of the past 25 years), the school and the conference would make lots more money and that would result in decreasing pressure for conference realignment.
The inevitable result of this cash windfall for TCU would be a 20% increase in tuition.
Agreed, 8 teams is FAR better than 12. It's hard enough to find compelling matchups when there are only 4 teams. 12 would be a total sellout for money, but it'd cheapen the regular season considerably. I'd much prefer they stay at 4, but 8 wouldn't be terrible.
People need to stop comparing football to basketball, baseball, and the other sports because there is no comparison.
the extra revenue will come just in time to pay the athletes
Whatever.
Just remember, however great such a proposal sounds, it will be finalized and implemented by the same gang of crooked swine that managed to screw up the first iteration of The Playoff.
"Meet the new Boss! Same as the old Boss!"
Just remember, however great such a proposal sounds, it will be finalized and implemented by the same gang of crooked swine that managed to screw up the first iteration of The Playoff.
"Meet the new Boss! Same as the old Boss!"
His reading comprehension is fine. He raised a valid counterpoint.
You proposed that the byes are essentially there to screw the G5 participant. He raised the valid point that the current system (it's understood that's not what you're advocating) screws them even more, since they have virtually no shot at participating in the first place, therefore the new system would seem to benefit them ever so slightly.
So screwing them less is better than not at all? It is a false argument to shift back to something that is not part of the future. When discussing 12 vs 8 or 16 the 4 is irrelevant for anything other than a distraction for not having a good answer.
I don't see the point in implementing a system that still has the unjust flaws when we could implement a fair system just as easily.
I watch about every regular season top-12 matchup there is, and I’ll watch every postseason top-12 game as well. More college football is good with me
Dude you complain about anything that hurts Ohio state. Go play in the corner and allow the real TCU fans to be happy that our athletic future isn’t dictated by Ohio state losers complaining about the system that gives TCU more access and a seat at the P5 level in everyone’s lifetime.
I don't get the "it will diminish the regular season" argument at all. If anything, this enhances the regular season in a way that 4 or 8 can not.