Jared7
Active Member
As to the byes, I agree - G5 teams will have virtually no chance to get them. But they will get into the playoff and their champ will have to be beaten on the field which is a massive increase in fairness. And one advantage of the 4 highest ranked conference champs getting the byes is that no conference will get more than one bye - not the SEC nor the Big 10.Not disputing the additional teams. just the 12 vs 16 - bye or no bye. I just see it as an extreme unfair advantage which will go to the SEC champ, Big 10 champ, ACC champ (if Clemson, Miami or Fl St) plus one other champion to fight it out between Big 12 and Pac. No G5 champion will ever get considered for the bye. So no real change in fairness, just an opportunity to say "See you do have a chance".
There is almost no competition from other sport this time of year, so the times are not prohibitive to viewers in any extreme amount. The following teams are an example of who might make the playoffs given those extra games.
2019: 13-16 teams in AP - Baylor, Auburn, Iowa, and Utah. These teams playing against a top 4 team will get viewership.
2018: Washington, Michigan, Syracuse, Texas A&M
2017: Miami, Ok State, Michigan St, Washington
Regarding the TV, yeah, other than the NFL, the NHL, the NBA , the ATP finals, soccer, the highly-watched golf gimmicks (Skins game) etc..., not much else going on. The key here is that the networks were not part of the task force, so it is certain that they will be asked whether and how much more they would pay for 8 additional games rather than just 4. You could quite well be right and they would pay more - a lot more. The question would then be is it worth it? Under this proposal, the CCG's will be the play-in games for the top 4 conference champs, so they would be playing no more additional games. Notre Dame, not having a CCG, would look at it as just adding 1 more game (like a CCG) while remaining indy. The other participants would be adding a game but they would be expected to lose at some point, so the additional games would be limited. We'll see what results from this - we're only at the beginning of the process and much could change as other stakeholders weigh in.
My essential point is that this proposal represents a massive change that could be very beneficial to TCU and teams like TCU.