- 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
How do you define "Plus One?"
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:34 pm
1. Classical Definition: after the BCS title game, if there was a 3rd team who met a certain number of requirements but was "left out" of the title game, there will be one more game b/w the winner of the title game and this 3rd team (popular after 03/04)
2. Playoff Definition: pick the title game, then pick another BCS bowl. Take the winners of these 2 and play for the title. This is essentially a 4-team playoff (popular after 06/07).
3. Neo-Classical Definition: play 5 BCS bowl games with whatever normal tie-ins there are. Out of the 5 winners, you re-evaluate how things ended up, and you take the top 2 of these 5 to play for the title (popular after 08)
2. Playoff Definition: pick the title game, then pick another BCS bowl. Take the winners of these 2 and play for the title. This is essentially a 4-team playoff (popular after 06/07).
3. Neo-Classical Definition: play 5 BCS bowl games with whatever normal tie-ins there are. Out of the 5 winners, you re-evaluate how things ended up, and you take the top 2 of these 5 to play for the title (popular after 08)
14
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
i am in favor of the option #3 style. it would keep more people happy than any other and gives teams like utah at least a chance
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
3. Neo-Classical Definition: play 5 BCS bowl games with whatever normal tie-ins there are. Out of the 5 winners, you re-evaluate how things ended up, and you take the top 2 of these 5 to play for the title (popular after 08)
I've liked this one for awhile, though, not just cause of Utah/USC.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
3. Neo-Classical Definition: play 5 BCS bowl games with whatever normal tie-ins there are. Out of the 5 winners, you re-evaluate how things ended up, and you take the top 2 of these 5 to play for the title (popular after 08)
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:39 pm to rocket31
quote:
i am in favor of the option #3 style.
well this thread isn't about which you favor
*ETA: and this goes for all of you
This post was edited on 1/3/09 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
1. Classical Definition: after the BCS title game, if there was a 3rd team who met a certain number of requirements but was "left out" of the title game, there will be one more game b/w the winner of the title game and this 3rd team (popular after 03/04)
2. Playoff Definition: pick the title game, then pick another BCS bowl. Take the winners of these 2 and play for the title. This is essentially a 4-team playoff (popular after 06/07).
Both of these are completely unfair to the teams in the original national championship game. And frankly, these two were never and will never be considered as a +1 format.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:40 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
And frankly, these two were never and will never be considered as a +1 format.
dude
until the offseason before this year, these were what commentators meant when they said "plus one"
the classical definition was THE definition until about 2006
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
commentators meant when they said "plus one"
commentators were never and will never be in charge. The BCS was never thinking of ideas #1 or 2. It would be way too unfair to the team who won the first NC game. It would be even worse than it is now.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:42 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well this thread isn't about which you favor
well that is how i define it when i discuss it on here.
seems most people here believe +1 is the following:
1 v 4
2 v 3
winners play
This post was edited on 1/3/09 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:43 pm to rocket31
quote:
1 v 4
2 v 3
winners play
Exactly.
In #2, you would have #1 v. #2, and #3 v. #4. How is that fair?
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:44 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
commentators were never and will never be in charge.
commentators did, however, invent the term
and they've changes its definition twice so far
quote:
The BCS was never thinking of ideas #1 or 2.
after 03/04, yes it did. to appease teams like USC and Auburn, respectively
and during the 2006 drama, the 4-team playoff idea was what they used. same last year
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:44 pm to rocket31
quote:
seems most people here believe +1 is the following:
1 v 4
2 v 3
winners play
but that's a 4 team playoff, not a "plus one"
which is why i always hated the 2nd definition
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:45 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
In #2, you would have #1 v. #2, and #3 v. #4. How is that fair?
naw it would be a 4-team playoff like any other
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
after 03/04, yes it did. to appease teams like USC and Auburn, respectively
No they weren't. Just because ESPN said it would be a good idea doesn't mean it was actually going to happen. That means in 2004, USC would have had to beat Oklahoma and Auburn, while Auburn would have had to beat Virginia Tech and USC. USC would have had to play the #2 team in the BCS to get to the title game even thought USC was ranked #1, and Auburn would have had to play #8 Virginia Tech to get to the title game.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:49 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
Just because ESPN said it would be a good idea doesn't mean it was actually going to happen
this goes well beyond ESPN
and none of these things are going to happen
quote:
That means in 2004, USC would have had to beat Oklahoma and Auburn, while Auburn would have had to beat Virginia Tech and USC. USC would have had to play the #2 team in the BCS to get to the title game even thought USC was ranked #1, and Auburn would have had to play #8 Virginia Tech to get to the title game.
and that's what the term "plus one" originally meant
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
I define it as #3 except without 5 BCS bowls. There are no traditional ties with the 5th BCS bowl, the national title now, except for BCS 1/2. That wouldn't happen in a playoff.
Four original BCS bowls. Winners advance. Having 5 BCS bowls fricks everything up anyway because it would essentially give someone a bye, which is bullshite.
Four original BCS bowls. Winners advance. Having 5 BCS bowls fricks everything up anyway because it would essentially give someone a bye, which is bullshite.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and that's what the term "plus one" originally meant
And that's why I'm saying I don't define it that way. It would be completely unfair to the top two ranked teams. I think the third way is a true plus one.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well this thread isn't about which you favor
*ETA: and this goes for all of you
So this thread is basically for you to ask people how THEY define Plus and then for you to tell them why they're wrong??
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:54 pm to tigerguy121
quote:
So this thread is basically for you to ask people how THEY define Plus and then for you to tell them why they're wrong??
no this is for people to say which of the 3 definitions this term has had they use
not which system they'd prefer
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
no this is for people to say which of the 3 definitions this term has had they use
Only if he gets Lorenzo Neal back!!!!
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News