BCS needs a Plus-1

you could still end up with 3 undefeated teams with that model. it wouldnt solve anything

no, the plus one is a BAD idea that doesn't solve anything.

if you are going to go to a four-team situation, just make it a true 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs 3 with the winners meeting.

course there are more issues opened up when you go to that....and number 5 and maybe 6 are going to complain they should be 4. may not be the case this year with two pretenders (boise and tcu) but in past seasons like 2004 if you had three legit teams and 'utah' at 4, the team playing utah gets a free pass vs allbarn and ou that would have had to play, etc, etc, etc.

quote:

---

Rose: Pac 10, #1 Oregon v. Big 10, #7 Wisconsin
Sugar: SEC, #2 Auburn v. at large #4 Boise State
Cotton: Non-BCS automatic berth, #3 TCU v. at large #5 LSU

---

So, just for shits and giggles, let's say Oregon, Boise, and TCU win those games. Who plays the plus one game, and who gets left out? This system leaves us with the same problem the current system has.

The better system is to just us the BCS rankings as they currently are, and have a 4 team playoff instead of a 2 team playoff. That still isn't perfect because some years, there aren't 4 deserving teams (2005, for example); but it beats the current system and the plus one above.

quote:

---

no, 32 team playoff, make it real

---

i say at least 16 team playoff until then the mnc game is decided by people that follow cfb a lot less than us fans.

quote:

---

quote:


course there are more issues opened up when you go to that....and number 5 and maybe 6 are going to complain they should be 4. may not be the case this year with two pretenders (boise and tcu) but in past seasons like 2004 if you had three legit teams and 'utah' at 4, the team playing utah gets a free pass vs allbarn and ou that would have had to play, etc, etc, etc.



The purpose for opening it up for 4 teams should be to ensure that you have the two worthiest teams. It's just too hard to do that with only 2 teams. If a team can't convince the voters that they are in the top 4 or earn enough of a boost in the computers to be in the Top 4 of the BCS, then they ain't got nothing to bitch about (even though they will). It's about making sure you have the two best, not the 4 best which is just as difficult or even more so than picking just a top 2

---

there are many statements that come out in the pro playoff article where arbitrary value is applied to certain concepts as if it were a given.

you say that the goal is to "find the two worthiest teams". if you just put all 120 teams in a 7 round playoff you would be guarenteed ave the two worthiest teams IN the playoff.

but does that mean that it is a MORE VALID METHOD of determining a champion? it means that every team has a chance, but i'm not sure it makes it more valid.

you say that 'if a team can't convince voters they are in the top 4...they have nothing to bitch about'. well, your whole arguement is about teams 3 and 4 that can't convince voters they are in the top 2. why is it that you want to expand the format because team 4 hasn't convinced someone it should be team 2 (two spots) yet suddenly a one spot gap between 4th and 5th becomes a brick wall in an expanded playoff???

a few years back, a team that was a four-seed in one of 16 NCAA baseball regionals won the national championship. theoretically, they were considered to be no better than the 49th best team in the country heading into the post season tournament.

the other statement i love to see is, in all the bcs talk, those who state 'a team that doesn't win it's division or conference doesn't DESERVE to play for the title'. really? based on what? was that on one of the two tablets that moses dropped? did stephen hawking discover that on the chalk board one day? it's just an arbitrary statement and i find it ironic that most of the people making it also support a '16 team playoff' (that happens to involve teams that didn't win their conference/division)

while many say that 'every other sport has a playoff' and 'settles it on the field' and therefore attach more 'validity' to using a multi-team playoff format...i say that college baseball tournament made a strong point that a playoff champion is no more than the winner of a 'post season tournament' and only proves that they were the best (and perhaps luckiest) team during the course of THAT TOURNAMENT.

on the other hand, a 'two-team playoff' as we have in college football does put more weight on season long happenings and i think you can make a case that the winner is more representative of being labled the best team over the course of a given season.

of course, what really clouds the whole thing up is how you want to define your "best team"...how you consider improvement, etc...and in the end a lot of this just boils down to what you 'like'.

i personally think college footbal is great the way it is. i think the bcs and two team 'playoff' fixed the old problem of bowl matchups being made in late october and got us a legit championship game. i do see where a four-team playoff 'might' be an improvement, but it is also not a panacea and in some cases may increase the 'human element' and possilbity of error. i am definately against an eight team playoff.

in the end, this just boils down to what you LIKE. yeah, i think auburn got jobbed in 2004, and hate hearing people complain about our titles in 2003 and to a lesser extent 07, but it also creates some controversy, which a little of can be a good thing.

Plus 1 = Fail

16 team playoff and settle it on the field!!!

So Alabama would have had to play Boise last year after thrashing Texas?