- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: BCS "fix" question - the "+1"
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:21 am to lake chuck fan
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:21 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
If applied to this season, with LSU being a conference champ. and the only undefeated team, it would seem like the fair thing would be for LSU to have a bye.... let the next two teams in line play to see who goes... (Bama/Ok. State)
That would be what I've always thought a +1 is. However, as Alx has pointed out, there's probably not a single definition of the concept.
0
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:23 am to MountainTiger
quote:
Ok, we'll use that definition then. I'm still curious though what is the one game being added?
The NCG, which was added a few years ago. There aren't 2 sugar bowl games this year. There is 1 sugar bowl and an additional NCG.
BTW, I know who you were responding to even though you responded to my post, but I don't think you're wrong. I've just never heard of it described that way. Seriously, a link or full explanation would be helpful, because I've only seen it laid out one way.
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 10:24 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:24 am to MountainTiger
quote:And there it is.
I'm still curious though what is the one game being added?
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:34 am to junkfunky
quote:
I've just never heard of it described that way
Me either.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:35 am to junkfunky
quote:
The NCG, which was added a few years ago.
But that game already exists. It isn't being added.
quote:
BTW, I know who you were responding to even though you responded to my post, but I don't think you're wrong. I've just never heard of it described that way. Seriously, a link or full explanation would be helpful, because I've only seen it laid out one way.
I was responding to both of you. My understanding of a +1 game (which goes back a few years) is one extra play-in game where two teams play each other to decide who gets to go to the NCG. That definition actually makes sense because you're only adding one game. But I'm willing to go with Herbie's screwed up arithmetic for the sake of us all using a common definition.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:37 am to AlxTgr
I'm not sure how they're going to solve the issue of administering a plus one game but I seriously doubt if its ever going to be subjective to how the season plays out.
The whole if its ends this way we do that but if it ends another way we do something else is never going to fly. It will be one way or the other and it will still create controversy.
The whole if its ends this way we do that but if it ends another way we do something else is never going to fly. It will be one way or the other and it will still create controversy.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:37 am to AlxTgr
1 vs 4, 2 vs 3.. then winners play a week or two later in the Championship. This is the PLUS ONE that most people favor, and I've heard several people on TV lately say it's most likely going to happen soon
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:39 am to wilfont
That's fine, but it's out there.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 10:52 am to wilfont
quote:
and it will still create controversy.
but isnt it better to mitigate that?
You start a conversation about who's the #2 team in the country, everyone is up in arms, yet discuss who the #4 team is? It's not as volatile a subject.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:00 am to Uncle Stu
quote:
but isnt it better to mitigate that?
I don't see how you're ever going to mitigate the perception that someone is being overlooked.
Take this year for example. If LSU, Bama, Stanford and Okie State are the top four teams playing for a plus one game I can see Boise raising hell that they didn't make the top four. Oregon who won the very conference Stanford plays in and blew Stanford away would be crying as well.
Its always going to be there whether the cut off is 1 and two or four and five.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:10 am to wilfont
quote:
Its always going to be there whether the cut off is 1 and two or four and five.
To prove your point, 64 (now 65 with the extra play-in game) teams get into the NCAA Basketball tournament and yet you still hear the 66th team complaining that they didn't get in.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:13 am to MountainTiger
yes yes yes..I stated all that earlier - it will NEVER go away, but all the vitriol would be drastically reduced if we're arguing about who's #4.
That's why I said "mitigate" not "eliminate"
That's why I said "mitigate" not "eliminate"
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:15 am to Uncle Stu
quote:
but all the vitriol would be drastically reduced
But it wouldn't. It would just shift further down the rankings that's all. It would be just as intense if it were a 16 team playoff and schools 17-22 felt they were hosed.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:16 am to MountainTiger
quote:
To prove your point, 64 (now 65 with the extra play-in game) teams get into the NCAA Basketball tournament and yet you still hear the 66th team complaining that they didn't get in.
Excellent point. Thanks
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:28 am to wilfont
quote:
if it were a 16 team playoff and schools 17-22 felt they were hosed.
1 LSU 1.0000 1 1 2875 1.0000 1 1475 1.0000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.000
2 Alabama .9419 2 2 2723 .9471 2 1399 .9485 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 .930
3 Oklahoma State .9333 3 3 2654 .9231 3 1367 .9268 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 .950
4 Stanford .8476 4 4 2504 .8710 4 1286 .8719 5 4 4 5 8 10 7 .800
5 Oregon .7901 9 5 2372 .8250 5 1232 .8353 8 12 5 8 10 9 6 .710
6 Arkansas .7687 8 7 2163 .7523 7 1112 .7539 5 7 8 12 5 4 4 .800
7 Boise State .7408 7 6 2236 .7777 6 1128 .7647 9 9 6 7 12 12 8 .680
8 Kansas State .6827 11 10 1733 .6028 10 878 .5953 4 5 7 4 4 5 5 .850
9 South Carolina .6553 12 9 1833 .6376 9 971 .6583 10 8 12 11 9 8 9 .670
10 Wisconsin .6374 15 8 2060 .7165 8 1085 .7356 14 15 10 15 16 19 12 .460
11 Virginia Tech .5190 5 11 1498 .5210 11 835 .5661 13 13 11 13 14 21 17 .470
12 Baylor .4977 17 16 1228 .4271 16 599 .4061 11 10 17 10 6 7 11 .660
13 Michigan .4794 16 12 1447 .5033 12 789 .5349 15 11 16 9 19 22 18 .400
14 Oklahoma .4603 10 19 933 .3245 19 437 .2963 7 6 9 6 7 6 10 .760
15 Clemson .4218 20 14 1351 .4699 14 657 .4454 16 19 15 18 20 17 13 .350
16 Georgia .4119 14 18 1095 .3809 18 538 .3647 12 14 20 16 11 11 14 .490
17 Michigan State .3883 13 13 1428 .4967 13 735 .4983 21 20 13 21 24 24 22 .170
18 TCU .3869 18 15 1245 .4330 15 631 .4278 17 22 14 19 23 18 15 .300
19 Houston .3504 6 17 1132 .3937 17 542 .3675 18 16 19 14 21 25 19 .290
20 Nebraska .2606 19 20 717 .2494 20 402 .2725 19 17 18 17 25 23 20 .260
21 Southern Miss .1918 24 21 711 .2473 21 366 .2481 24 0 22 22 0 0 16 .080
22 Penn State .1305 21 23 383 .1332 23 189 .1281 23 21 21 20 0 0 23 .130
23 West Virginia .1233 23 22 522 .1816 22 278 .1885 25 0 0 24 0 0 0 .000
24 Texas .0876 22 NR 6 .0021 -- -- -- 19 18 0 23 13 13 24 .260
25 Auburn .0584 NR NR 15 .0052 -- -- -- 21 25 24 0 17
It would be insane seeing that conference champions and one loss teams would be sitting while non conference champs and three loss teams made it to the 16 team playoff.
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 11:28 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 11:55 am to Holden Caulfield
That's exactly why playoffs will not work in college football. You would have to ignore rankings and just go by conference championships. WTF would ESPNU talk about all year? How could they ignore rankings when rankings have been part of the fabric of college football for so many years, only to have them deemed irrelevant? "number crunching" is exactly what the BCS is. And the prescription for too much number crunching is more number crunching?
Then - what conferences should be considered? What conferences should be ignored?
This is an "occupy" type question. Let everyone play! bullshite. The SEC is the 1% in college football!
Then - what conferences should be considered? What conferences should be ignored?
This is an "occupy" type question. Let everyone play! bullshite. The SEC is the 1% in college football!
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:07 pm to rballa19
As much as I hate agreeing with Gary Danielson, I really liked his 6 team playoff where the top 2 get a bye week and the number 1 team plays the winner of the lesser ranked teams of the top 6.
Would be a good medium btw playoff system and the every game counts system
Would be a good medium btw playoff system and the every game counts system
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:30 pm to TigerInAnnArbor
+1 would have it's flaws just like any other system. In the end, it all comes down to rankings. How you rank the teams. Solely using computers for whatever system (with an easy to understand formula [not some of the complicated crap now] much like power rankings in high school football) would add an unbiased, every team knows what they need to do, aspect, which is win games and play opponents that will win games.
As for this, I'm more for a 6 team as well, but only using the conference champions (regardless of record). Makes for a simple to understand rule. Win your conference and you're in, don't and you aren't.
quote:
I like the idea of a 6 team playoff by BCS standings, but it days away from each BCS bowl in my opinion.
As for this, I'm more for a 6 team as well, but only using the conference champions (regardless of record). Makes for a simple to understand rule. Win your conference and you're in, don't and you aren't.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:41 pm to bayoubengal11
quote:
As for this, I'm more for a 6 team as well, but only using the conference champions (regardless of record). Makes for a simple to understand rule. Win your conference and you're in, don't and you aren't.
This would render rankings irrelevant. I don't think college football fans could stand this. Also, this system would totally have left out Bama this year.
Leave the BCS as it is and maybe have "doomsday" safety valve - not an every year plus 1
Posted on 12/8/11 at 12:51 pm to Debaser
I love how the only people that bash a +1 system on here are the ones who don't seem to understand what a "+1" is. 
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News