- 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
1
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:23 am to AstroTiger
LSU vs Stanford winner plays Okie St vs Bama winner in Jerry World
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:24 am to AstroTiger
quote:bam
Exactly. This is what a +1 means. The 1v4 and 2v3 scenarios are a playoff. A +1 system is objective to the situation at hand, which means that if only 2 teams were undefeated, there would be no additional game, just the 1 championship game between the two.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:24 am to !Tiger
quote:
In a plus 1 scenario, someone sits while two others play it out.
That is not what a +1 is.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:26 am to Debaser
Deal with it - a +1 is coming after this next season. Beebe is the only reason we don't have one already and he is gone and (at least the interim) replacement Neinas is vocally pro. Also, the Pac12 (which along with Big10 are the traditional killers) have a new commish who seems to be much more progressive and forward thinking. It won't matter either way, the Pac12/Big10 can continue to try and block it and as long as we have support from the Big12 (given that ACC and SEC are very much pro) it's going to happen.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:27 am to Debaser
There is much whining and complaining EVERY YEAR until the games are played and a champion is crowned. Then, it doesn't matter. No one worries about who was left out (and few even remember it)until the next season ending.
I find it silliness that there is so much consternation and nearly every time....the system WORKS and the acknowledged #1 ends up #1.
I only ever even think about 2004 (undefeated AU). Otherwise, I cannot think of one year where I was not satisfied with the final outcome. Even 2004 is okay. It is not as if I am losing my mind over it.
I find it silliness that there is so much consternation and nearly every time....the system WORKS and the acknowledged #1 ends up #1.
I only ever even think about 2004 (undefeated AU). Otherwise, I cannot think of one year where I was not satisfied with the final outcome. Even 2004 is okay. It is not as if I am losing my mind over it.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:27 am to !Tiger
quote:
That's called a playoff, not a plus 1.
A +1 is a playoff. It's not called a playoff because "playoff" is a dirty word. I haven't heard one person, until today, say that a +1 involves only 3 teams.
This post was edited on 12/8/11 at 9:28 am
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:29 am to junkfunky
quote:
That is not what a +1 is.
yeah, I was under the impression everyone plays in their bowl game (nobody "sits out") then there is one more game between 1 & 2 as the BCS rankings stand after all the bowl games
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:29 am to junkfunky
The non-playoff format "+1" would involve having the teams play in the BCS games according to their conference affiliations, not according to BCS ranking. The idea being that all of the top teams will have to play a tough game in the BCS bowls against OOC opponents. From there the top 2 would be selected to play in the national championship "+1" game.
I personally don't see why a 4 team playoff "+1" wouldn't be perfect. You can play 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 either for the right to play for it all.
I personally don't see why a 4 team playoff "+1" wouldn't be perfect. You can play 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 either for the right to play for it all.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:31 am to junkfunky
Well, to be fair, +1 has had several different meanings over the years depending on scenarios.
The old bowl system plus an extra game, seeding the current bowl system and using the 5th BCS bowl as the +1 game, using a +1 game to break a three-way tie USC, Aub, Oklahoma 2004, etc...
The old bowl system plus an extra game, seeding the current bowl system and using the 5th BCS bowl as the +1 game, using a +1 game to break a three-way tie USC, Aub, Oklahoma 2004, etc...
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:34 am to !Tiger
What would a +1 be this year? Should LSU sit while Alabama-OSU play to see who plays us?
That sounds like a seeded playoff with a bye to me.
But to each his own.
That sounds like a seeded playoff with a bye to me.
But to each his own.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:36 am to !Tiger
And if we shouldn't have to sit, who should we play? And what if we lost that game, would we still deserve the +1 game? Why should we have to play another tough game when we already went 13-0?
The arguments never end.
The arguments never end.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:37 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I only ever even think about 2004 (undefeated AU). Otherwise, I cannot think of one year where I was not satisfied with the final outcome. Even 2004 is okay. It is not as if I am losing my mind over it.
This is because LSU was not left out. It didn't work in 2003 also as USC was left out and most people felt it should have been LSU vs USC.
The only time it works is when 2 teams go undefeated, Hell pay me money i can tell you who should play then.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:37 am to cnote
College Football is truly unique from all of the other sports. Each year seems to end with a unique scenario. There doesn't seem to be one system that will "get it right" 100% of the time.
If we had a +1 system this year (aka, a 4 team playoff), who would have been chosen? LSU, Bama, Okie St., and ... Stanford? Va Tech? Boise St? (an undefeated Houston, if they had won?), (a one loss Oregon, if they had won?). There would still be the need for the BCS poll system, with coaches pimping for their school, coaches manipulating their votes, Harris voters being dumbasses, ESPN pimping for their favorite high profile teams, and super-secret computer polls that are super-retarded.
Other years would have different issues.
It would be difficult to create, but I think there should be an "if needed" type variable system, with a selction committee (like in college baseball and basketball). The selection committee would not only choose which teams would participate, but would also choose the type of playoff that would be suitable for that season's end of the year scenario.
This year, a three team playoff would probable be best, with Bama and Okie State facing off, while LSU would get a bye.
If we had a +1 system this year (aka, a 4 team playoff), who would have been chosen? LSU, Bama, Okie St., and ... Stanford? Va Tech? Boise St? (an undefeated Houston, if they had won?), (a one loss Oregon, if they had won?). There would still be the need for the BCS poll system, with coaches pimping for their school, coaches manipulating their votes, Harris voters being dumbasses, ESPN pimping for their favorite high profile teams, and super-secret computer polls that are super-retarded.
Other years would have different issues.
It would be difficult to create, but I think there should be an "if needed" type variable system, with a selction committee (like in college baseball and basketball). The selection committee would not only choose which teams would participate, but would also choose the type of playoff that would be suitable for that season's end of the year scenario.
This year, a three team playoff would probable be best, with Bama and Okie State facing off, while LSU would get a bye.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:38 am to junkfunky
quote:Don't act like there is a Websters definition. See other posts in this thread. It's not a playoff. If it were, it would be called.....a playoff.
A +1 is a playoff. It's not called a playoff because "playoff" is a dirty word. I haven't heard one person, until today, say that a +1 involves only 3 teams.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:39 am to !Tiger
quote:
What would a +1 be this year?
Clemson (ACC) vs WVA (Big East) - Orange
LSU (SEC) vs Stanford (At-Large) - Sugar
Okie St (Big 12) vs Alabama (At-Large) - Fiesta
Oregon (Pac 12) vs Wisconsin (Big 10) - Rose
crunch the numbers one more time, whomever ends up 1 & 2 plays for all the marbles
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:40 am to LSUray
quote:
The non-playoff format "+1" would involve having the teams play in the BCS games according to their conference affiliations, not according to BCS ranking. The idea being that all of the top teams will have to play a tough game in the BCS bowls against OOC opponents. From there the top 2 would be selected to play in the national championship "+1" game.
Either way, no one is sitting at home while games are being played.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:40 am to Uncle Stu
quote:
yeah, I was under the impression everyone plays in their bowl game (nobody "sits out") then there is one more game between 1 & 2 as the BCS rankings stand after all the bowl games
I would be fine with this system.
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:40 am to Uncle Stu
quote:
crunch the numbers one more time, whomever ends up 1 & 2 plays for all the marbles
Double crunching? That doesn't sound better in any way!
Posted on 12/8/11 at 9:41 am to Broham
quote:
Nobody sits in a plus one. 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3, then the winners meet.
That's not a +1. That's a +2, or in other words, a 4 team playoff.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News