- 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
Explain to me the +1 scenario
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:14 am
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:14 am
Bill S. King had David Pollack on this morning on XM, talking about the +1.
Pollack said that Alabama would get to play Okie State after beating LSU.
Is this that "benefit of the doubt" thing? Shouldnt Alabama play Okie State first to see who plays the sitting number 1 team? Is this just Pollack being Pollack?
Thanks and
Pollack said that Alabama would get to play Okie State after beating LSU.
Is this that "benefit of the doubt" thing? Shouldnt Alabama play Okie State first to see who plays the sitting number 1 team? Is this just Pollack being Pollack?
Thanks and
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:16 am to ChuckM
yes he misspoke. bama would play oklahoma st. lsu would play stanford.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:17 am to ChuckM
if the plus 1 would have been in effect Lsu would play stanford and bama osu, then winner would play for NC. Takes the top 4 1 plays 4 and 2 plays 3
This post was edited on 2/8/12 at 8:18 am
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:18 am to ChuckM
I disagree
LSU and Bama would have faced each other in the +1 game.
1v4
2v3
LSU and Bama would have faced each other in the +1 game.
1v4
2v3
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:18 am to bbap
Yep we would have played Stanford... should implement this next season, BCS has played its course, its time for new excitement to college football...
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:26 am to Tiger Nation 84
Well thats impossible to do because the BCS contract isnt up until 2014.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:29 am to bbap
I guess these type of contracts are iron clad and indisputable.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:31 am to ChuckM
If it was a plus 1 after the BCS then he's technically right. but it wouldn't happen that way. If there was a plus 1 in place, you would not have 1 and 2 play in a bowl. In a true plus one, this particular year, you would have had 1 v 4 and 2 v 3 most likley and the winners play. This year it works out since 2 of the top 4 didn't win a conference and could go anywhere, that's not always the case.
2010 for example in a plus one, you have Oregon play Wisky in the Rose and Auburn play maybe Stanford or TCU in the Sugar and the top 2 after that play for the title.
I think what is being proposed in a 4 team playoff.
2010 for example in a plus one, you have Oregon play Wisky in the Rose and Auburn play maybe Stanford or TCU in the Sugar and the top 2 after that play for the title.
I think what is being proposed in a 4 team playoff.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:39 am to H-Town Tiger
Not sure why they keep referring to it as +1...it is really a four-team playoff (top 4 in BCS). Semifinals played at higher seeds' stadium, final played at neutral site. I love it.
+1 implies that you play the bowl games as we have always done, and then take top 2 teams after that. The problem is that there is no control of bowl matchups due to bowl tie-ins.
+1 implies that you play the bowl games as we have always done, and then take top 2 teams after that. The problem is that there is no control of bowl matchups due to bowl tie-ins.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:47 am to Chicken
Yes, +1 is just 1 versus 2 determined after the bowl games.
If instead, 1 has to play 4 and 2 has to play 3, you're no longer in the +1 realm.
That's a four team playoff.
If instead, 1 has to play 4 and 2 has to play 3, you're no longer in the +1 realm.
That's a four team playoff.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 8:49 am to ChuckM
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/8/12 at 8:52 am
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:04 am to Chicken
quote:
Not sure why they keep referring to it as +1...it is really a four-team playoff (top 4 in BCS).
either because they are idiots or the don't want to say playoff.
quote:
Semifinals played at higher seeds' stadium, final played at neutral site. I love it.
+1
I agree i think this system would be perfect.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:04 am to Chicken
quote:Yes. Another way to have a true +1 is to have LSU sit since there was no doubt about #1. Bama plays OK State to see who plays LSU. That's a +1 and not a playoff. Similar thing in '03.
Not sure why they keep referring to it as +1...it is really a four-team playoff (top 4 in BCS).
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:09 am to just me
quote:
Yes, +1 is just 1 versus 2 determined after the bowl games.
Exactly. Everyone keeps (mistakenly) thinking that a +1 is a 4 team playoff. It isn't. A +1 scenario matches the top 2 teams after the bowls are played. Theoretically, a team could be #6 going into the bowls, and end up in the championship under a +1 scenario. I hate it. We all need to be using the term "4 Team Playoff".
For instance, in 2008:
Week 15 rankings (prior to Bowls)-
#1 Florida
#2 Oklahoma
#3 Texas
#4 Alabama
#5 USC
#6 Penn St
#7 Utah
Week 16 ranking (after the Bowls) -
#1 Florida
#2 Utah
#3 USC
etc.
This post was edited on 2/8/12 at 9:14 am
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:12 am to just me
quote:
Yes, +1 is just 1 versus 2 determined after the bowl games.
If instead, 1 has to play 4 and 2 has to play 3, you're no longer in the +1 realm.
That's a four team playoff.
While I like this idea, there better be WRITTEN standards for determining the final 4 teams. Not "eyeball tests" or "quality loses". Real standards.
Also, what does this do to address teams that will play an extra game due to conference championship games, etc?
This years set up would have been great:
LSU vs Stan
Bama vs OSU..
Except for the fact that LSU was the only team out of those four that played a conference championship game. LSU and OSU were the only two that technically won their conference.
So, Stanford gets in over Oregon because Oregon had the balls to schedule LSU in week one? That's bullshite as well. Oregon schedules a Bama schedule, and they don't have that extra loss that eliminates them from this imaginary final four.
I could go on and on about the flaws of this as well.
IMO, this "Plus 1" just gives ESPN an opportunity to add their one or two more of their darlings in the mix, regardless of who was on their schedule and regardless of who they beat or lost to.
Give me standards in writing. As a fan of CFB, I'm sick of these unwritten rules that change depending on who needs to benefit from them.
/of my pointless rant.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:17 am to ChuckM
So in other words, all a +1 would have done last year is made us have to beat yet another top-5 team before getting our rematch with Bama.
Woohoo, count me in...
Woohoo, count me in...
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:21 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
don't want to say playoff.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:40 am to EZE Tiger Fan
quote:
Plus 1" just gives ESPN an opportunity to add their one or two more of their darlings in the mix, regardless of who was on their schedule and regardless of who they beat or lost to
what the hell does this mean?
Who are ESPN's "darlings"?
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:42 am to Gravitiger
quote:
So in other words, all a +1 would have done last year is made us have to beat yet another top-5 team before getting our rematch with Bama.
Woohoo, count me in
well, Bama would have had to play another game as well.
Posted on 2/8/12 at 9:42 am to Gravitiger
quote:
So in other words, all a +1 would have done last year is made us have to beat yet another top-5 team before getting our rematch with Bama.
Woohoo, count me in...
Bingo.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News