- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
"Plus one" playoff systems
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:55 am
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:55 am
If this is instituted in the future, how would you like to see it done?
I'd put the 4 highest ranked BCS conference champions in it with the semi-finals being played at the higher seed's home stadium on January 1st or 2nd. Then, have the championship at a neutral site one week later.
This year it would look like this
(4)Wisconsin @ (1)LSU
(3)Oregon @ (2)Oklahoma State
If a non-BCS team was ranked in the top 4 of the final BCS rankings, I would let them in as well.
For example, last year it would have been
(4)Wisconsin @ (1)Auburn
(3)TCU @ (2)Oregon
I'd put the 4 highest ranked BCS conference champions in it with the semi-finals being played at the higher seed's home stadium on January 1st or 2nd. Then, have the championship at a neutral site one week later.
This year it would look like this
(4)Wisconsin @ (1)LSU
(3)Oregon @ (2)Oklahoma State
If a non-BCS team was ranked in the top 4 of the final BCS rankings, I would let them in as well.
For example, last year it would have been
(4)Wisconsin @ (1)Auburn
(3)TCU @ (2)Oregon
This post was edited on 12/5/11 at 9:58 am
10
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:56 am to rollthatback
quote:
I'd put the top 4 BCS conference champions
huh
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:57 am to rollthatback
So Alabama would be left out this year? No thanks
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:59 am to rollthatback
So leave out #2 for Wisconsin?
Last night I was thinking of something similar, but say that you must be top 6 to get a bid. If there aren't 4 conf champs in the top 6 you go at-large.
Last night I was thinking of something similar, but say that you must be top 6 to get a bid. If there aren't 4 conf champs in the top 6 you go at-large.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 9:59 am to GeorgeTheGreek
Alabama would have to win twice this season to be a legitimate Champion, IMHO.
Once in NOLA, and a tie-breaker at Tiger Stadium.
Once in NOLA, and a tie-breaker at Tiger Stadium.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 10:32 am to rollthatback
The goal of the BCS is to have the top 2 teams play for the crystal ball at the end of the year. This was accomplished this year and the system worked, just not to everyone's liking.
The fact is that both LSU and Bama would blow the doors off of any other team in the country with the exception of each other. I don't like the rematch idea, but know damn good and well that if LSU had lost 9-6 then we would all be saying we are the second best team in the land and deserve a rematch.
The fact is that both LSU and Bama would blow the doors off of any other team in the country with the exception of each other. I don't like the rematch idea, but know damn good and well that if LSU had lost 9-6 then we would all be saying we are the second best team in the land and deserve a rematch.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 10:52 am to 4LSU2
The BCS hasn't worked at all. It's three card monte, with a BS formula designed to replicate the human polls. The one time it didn't give us the top two teams in the poll, the AP crowned its own champ, and the BCS revised the formula. The system is designed to preserve the bowls.
Fine. Go back to the old bowl tie ins and then select a plus one title game after they've been played. This year, we'd have:
ROSE: Oregon (Pac-12 champ) v. Wisconsin (Big Ten champ)
SUGAR: LSU (SEC champ) v. Stanford (at-large)
FIESTA: Oklahoma St. (Big 12 champ) v. Alabama (at-large)
ORANGE: Clemson (ACC champ) v. Georgia (at large)
Yeah, why not UGa? Throw the Orange Bowl a bone and let them actually have a good matchup of traditional rivals.
We'd likely have LSU v. the Fiesta Bowl winner. If LSU loses to Stanford, well, tough ninnies for us. The bowls are a pseudo-playoff. This way you preserve traditional bowl matchups while also getting an undisputed champ. And we can chuck the ridiculous fraud of the BCS formula.
Fine. Go back to the old bowl tie ins and then select a plus one title game after they've been played. This year, we'd have:
ROSE: Oregon (Pac-12 champ) v. Wisconsin (Big Ten champ)
SUGAR: LSU (SEC champ) v. Stanford (at-large)
FIESTA: Oklahoma St. (Big 12 champ) v. Alabama (at-large)
ORANGE: Clemson (ACC champ) v. Georgia (at large)
Yeah, why not UGa? Throw the Orange Bowl a bone and let them actually have a good matchup of traditional rivals.
We'd likely have LSU v. the Fiesta Bowl winner. If LSU loses to Stanford, well, tough ninnies for us. The bowls are a pseudo-playoff. This way you preserve traditional bowl matchups while also getting an undisputed champ. And we can chuck the ridiculous fraud of the BCS formula.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:11 am to Baloo
I actually came up with an idea yesterday that I think is tough to argue.
Take the top 3 highest rated BCS Conference Champions and take the highest ranked team left over (At-Large).
This year you would get
(1) LSU vs. (5) Oregon
(2) Alabama vs. (3) Oklahoma State
Take the top 3 highest rated BCS Conference Champions and take the highest ranked team left over (At-Large).
This year you would get
(1) LSU vs. (5) Oregon
(2) Alabama vs. (3) Oklahoma State
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:16 am to dgtiger3
If you're only going to have a 4-team playoff, then I say you take only the top 6 as potential teams, and then take the 4 highest conference champs, and if there aren't 4 conference champs in there, fill in with at-large teams from the top.
That gives you LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon... then Alabama as an at-large.
If you did an 8-team playoff I'd do it the same way and limit it to the top 12 as eligible. LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and then Alabama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State as at-large teams.
That gives you LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon... then Alabama as an at-large.
If you did an 8-team playoff I'd do it the same way and limit it to the top 12 as eligible. LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, Wisconsin, and then Alabama, Stanford, Arkansas, Boise State as at-large teams.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:16 am to rollthatback
quote:
If this is instituted in the future, how would you like to see it done?
which plus one? there are at least 3 types of "plus one" systems
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
2 highest BCS conference champs plus 2 at large (which could also be conf champs)..1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 play some time before Christmas, winners play in NC game, losers in another BCS bowl
Problem solved
Problem solved
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:22 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
2 highest BCS conference champs plus 2 at large (which could also be conf champs)..1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 play some time before Christmas, winners play in NC game, losers in another BCS bowl
Problem solved
I think it would be a travesty to take Stanford over Oregon this season. Even if it means LSU would probably have rematches in both games.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:23 am to Baloo
quote:
Go back to the old bowl tie ins and then select a plus one title game after they've been played.
do the 2 teams in this plus one get to split the money b/w their respective conferences?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:26 am to LSUBoo
Taking 3 conference champs can lead to much worse scenarios than arguing the 4 vs 5 seed
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:28 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
Taking 3 conference champs can lead to much worse scenarios than arguing the 4 vs 5 seed
I'd take 4 conference champs if they made it into the top 6. I think winning your conference should mean a lot more, and I said that in 2003 just the same as I say it now.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:33 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
Taking 3 conference champs can lead to much worse scenarios than arguing the 4 vs 5 seed
Why?
You take the 3 highest rated conference champs and teams are going to schedule better teams OOC.
Point in case is this year Oregon would be left out behind Stanford, (whom they beat) because they scheduled LSU OOC instead of freaking Duke? Is that what you want? A system that rewards scheduling up cupcakes and racking up wins?
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:34 am to dgtiger3
Compare your scenario vs mine with an SEC Championship game upset
My scenario gets OSU, Oregon, LSU, and Bama still
My scenario gets OSU, Oregon, LSU, and Bama still
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do the 2 teams in this plus one get to split the money b/w their respective conferences?
I honestly could not give less of a shite. Whatever you want. That's not even an objection.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:44 am to Baloo
I like the idea of having a cutoff for eligibility. Just because you are a conf champ doesn't give you a pass. I'd make the Cotton a BCS game as well. You now have 5 BCS bowl sites with 2 of them rotating as the national semifinal and 1 being the site of their traditional bowl plus the championship game. That way each site is getting a "more important" game more often.
Posted on 12/5/11 at 11:48 am to Ford Frenzy
quote:
Compare your scenario vs mine with an SEC Championship game upset
My scenario gets OSU, Oregon, LSU, and Bama still
quote:
highest BCS conference champs plus 2 at large (which could also be conf champs)..1 vs 4, 2 vs 3 play some time before Christmas, winners play in NC game, losers in another BCS bowl
No it doesnt, your system puts Stanford over Oregon
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News