- 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
LA Times slams Mike Slive's plus one model
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:38 pm
dude said he was too aggressive 
, and that he shouldn't have used the word "seeding"
LINK
snippet:
, and that he shouldn't have used the word "seeding" LINK
snippet:
quote:
Wednesday was a dark day for every pencil pusher and/or University of Georgia president who ever concocted a "can't-miss" playoff plan for college football.
Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive put his "plus-one" model on the table at the Bowl Championship Series commissioners' meetings in South Florida and watched it die a lonely death.
What went wrong?
Slive went for a triple when he needed a bunt single.
His plan involved the word "seeding" and that scared swing-vote commissioners Michael Tranghese (Big East) and Dan Beebe (Big 12), whose conferences might have eventually been swayed by more subtle, incremental change.
There were two "plus-one" models out there, and Slive opted for the more aggressive one.
His plan would have taken the top four schools in the final BCS standings and formed a mini-tournament, with No. 1 playing No. 4 and No. 2 meeting No. 3 and the winners meeting for the national title.
The problem, Tranghese said, was that people wouldn't be satisfied with four teams. There would soon be a push for eight, and then you're heading down that slippery slope toward an NFL-style playoff that might have a negative impact on college football's unparalleled regular season.
Slive's impassioned and well-intended playoff play may have inadvertently set back the playoff cause years.
This post was edited on 5/1/08 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:39 pm to Tigahs
mike slive deserves to have his head slammed off a floor
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:40 pm to heartbreakTiger
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:40 pm to Tigahs
not for the plus one but for his bullshite defending of his shitty refs.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:40 pm to Tigahs
quote:
The problem, Tranghese said, was that people wouldn't be satisfied with four teams. There would soon be a push for eight, and then you're heading down that slippery slope toward an NFL-style playoff that might have a negative impact on college football's unparalleled regular season.
So fricking what? People hate the damn BCS and they wont change shite. If it were the top 4 teams, and people wanted 8, do like the BCS does now... Tell them to go to hell.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:41 pm to Tigahs
It really didn't "slam" Slive's proposal.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:43 pm to Tigahs
if 8 is too much and 4 is not enough, then what? 6? with the top 2 getting a bye, that's about all i can think of.....i personally like the idea of 4 teams and have a +1, your bowl games stay in tact and there is actually an extra game, meaning extra money, and i think everyone would be okay with a final 4, if it was in place last season Georgia and/or USC would have been moved up as necessary....heck LSU was moved up to their deserving slot
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:43 pm to El Guapo21
quote:
If it were the top 4 teams, and people wanted 8, do like the BCS does now... Tell them to go to hell.
My thoughts exactly.
It's a BS argument. "We may go too far so we won't make any changes for the better." How lame is that?
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:45 pm to josh336
6 is to many teams. on some years 4 is even to many
Posted on 5/1/08 at 4:54 pm to heartbreakTiger
How exactly can you do a +1 model without "seedings"? You still have to decide who plays whom. Do they think it should be random? How stupid are these people?
Posted on 5/1/08 at 5:02 pm to JudgeBoyett
quote:
How exactly can you do a +1 model without "seedings"? You still have to decide who plays whom. Do they think it should be random? How stupid are these people?
These are the same people that think everyone gives a shite about the Rose Bowl.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 5:32 pm to El Guapo21
Can't believe the barriers to making something simple as a playoff.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 5:32 pm to Tigahs
we now have a 2 team playoff. People complain about being left out. Would a 4 or 8 team playoff be any different? Before you answer consider the fact that when the NCAA BB tourney is announced commentators, coaches and fans of teams with records of 19-11 cry about being left out.
In this day and age people cry. It is only going to get worse.
A 4 or 8 team playoff will not solve the "crying game". UGA will cry about being left out of the #4 slot. I am not entirely sure UGA would have made the #4 slot had a 4 team playoff occurred last year.
tOSU-1
LSU-2
USC-3
Va Tech/Kansas/OU-4
OU and Va Tech won their conference championships.
In this day and age people cry. It is only going to get worse.
A 4 or 8 team playoff will not solve the "crying game". UGA will cry about being left out of the #4 slot. I am not entirely sure UGA would have made the #4 slot had a 4 team playoff occurred last year.
tOSU-1
LSU-2
USC-3
Va Tech/Kansas/OU-4
OU and Va Tech won their conference championships.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 5:41 pm to ShermanTxTiger
Slive was too agressive???? Not aggressive enough! Slive had all these aholes in one room. Should have introduced his special assistant Tony Soprano and made these aholes an offer they couldn't refuse.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 6:14 pm to subterraneanjack
Sissy arse Pac-10 and Big-10 and their passion for the damn Rose Bowl is what the problem is. Hell they dont even want a conference championship game...wusses!
Posted on 5/1/08 at 6:20 pm to Doc Feelgood
The bottom line is that the PAC-10 is going to be against anything that is going to interfere with USC being given its annual lamb to slaughter at the Rose Bowl from the Big slow 10, 11, or whatever the hell it is.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 6:32 pm to Doc Feelgood
Money talks and B.S. walks. A network has to make a Big Dollar Offer for the +1 game and let each conference decide if their teams want to be eligable for the +1 championship game.
If the Pac-10 and Big-10 don't want to play for the +1 champinship, that is their choice--they can hope for the A.P. to come to their rescue.
The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls can rotate which two will hold the two semi-final games--too bad Rose Bowl!
If the Pac-10 and Big-10 don't want to play for the +1 champinship, that is their choice--they can hope for the A.P. to come to their rescue.
The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls can rotate which two will hold the two semi-final games--too bad Rose Bowl!
Posted on 5/1/08 at 6:36 pm to Tigahs
quote:
The problem, Tranghese said, was that this threatened the Pac-10 vs Big-10 meeting in the Rose Bowl
fixed it for you.
Posted on 5/1/08 at 6:39 pm to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Before you answer consider the fact that when the NCAA BB tourney is announced commentators, coaches and fans of teams with records of 19-11 cry about being left out
You are not seriously comparing these 2 situations?
Posted on 5/1/08 at 8:22 pm to Al Bundy
quote:
You are not seriously comparing these 2 situations?
These are the facts:
1- Lately more and more teams cry (this year was the worst) over missing out on the NCG. Pete Carroll had an argument in 2003. UGA was just pitiful.
2- Lately more and more team cry about missing the NCAA tourney.
These are the facts and they are undisputed.
Why is anyone to believe a 4 or 8 team playoff will eliminate the "crying" of a 5th or 9th placed team?
Help me understand how a 4 team playoff would make UGA, Va tech, Kansas, or OU feel better had this been in place in 2007 and one of those teams missed the cut?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News