- 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
re: How do you define "Plus One?"
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
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
not which system they'd prefer
Isn't that the same thing?
1
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:55 pm to PortCityTiger24
PCT, more like PJ!!!!!
Posted on 1/3/09 at 12:56 pm to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
Isn't that the same thing?
not at all
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
well I'd define a +1 as #3 because that is the fairest way to do things.
Oh, and btw, I don't even think #1 and #2 were ever considered. When they said they wanted a +1, they wanted all four BCS bowls played with their traditional tie-ins, then for the national championship to be played.
Oh, and btw, I don't even think #1 and #2 were ever considered. When they said they wanted a +1, they wanted all four BCS bowls played with their traditional tie-ins, then for the national championship to be played.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:03 pm to BayouBengals03
3 is the only option. The four team playoff is crappy and solves nothing. Looking at this year, USC would have been left out of the equation, but Bama in it.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:07 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
Oh, and btw, I don't even think #1 and #2 were ever considered.
#1 has had the longest shelf life of any definition
#2 is a 4-team playoff. lots of people are pushing for a 4-team playoff
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
#1 has had the longest shelf life of any definition
I can guarantee you this one was never considered by the BCS committee. Ever.
quote:
#2 is a 4-team playoff. lots of people are pushing for a 4-team playoff
well then that's not a +1 format, it's a four team playoff.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:12 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
I can guarantee you this one was never considered by the BCS committee. Ever
none of these have been seriously considered by the committee, so i don't know why you keep bringing it up
quote:
well then that's not a +1 format, it's a four team playoff.
that's still how people used the term
it will be used in a year where there are more than 3 teams vying for the spot, before bowls. after bowls the situation is clear (like 2006), so the talk dies out for the most part.
#1 is brought up only when there are 3 teams, 2 teams after bowls. it's brought up after bowls
#3 is brought up when there is controversy before and after the bowls. this has only happened the past 2 years, which is why it's neo-classical
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
By 2011, I expect the Cotton Bowl to be included in the BCS equation with these bowls:
Orange
Rose
Sugar
Fiesta
Cotton
You can bet your arse that this place will be the home of the coolest BCS Bowl game ever, but this kick arse stadium will be in a setting even worse than Glendale: Arlington, Texas
Therefore, "plus one" will actually be "plus two"
Orange
Rose
Sugar
Fiesta
Cotton
quote:
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)
You can bet your arse that this place will be the home of the coolest BCS Bowl game ever, but this kick arse stadium will be in a setting even worse than Glendale: Arlington, Texas
Therefore, "plus one" will actually be "plus two"
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:15 pm to Chaz95
quote:
Chaz95
That would kill the process of a playoff. After you play the five BCS bowl winners, you have five winners. Where do you go from there? Do you give a team a bye, or just combine two teams and play them against one team?
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
none of these have been seriously considered by the committee, so i don't know why you keep bringing it up
But the first two really haven't been considered. Nobody thinks the first two are better or define a +1 in that way. This is a pointless thread because everyone's answer will be #3, where there are 4 BCS bowls, then the +1 game after.
This post was edited on 1/3/09 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
Slow, edit #3 to where it doesn't suck so much arse. No one would ever pick that the way you have it.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:21 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)
It's this one and has been popular long before 08. People clamored for it in 84 when Miami jumped AU to win the title and even before that when Penn St was shut out multiple times. It may not have been termed a plus one, but it was the original alternative to avoid disputed champs. Media just called it a one game playoff.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:24 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
quote:
It's this one and has been popular long before 08. People clamored for it in 84 when Miami jumped AU to win the title and even before that when Penn St was shut out multiple times. It may not have been termed a plus one, but it was the original alternative to avoid disputed champs. Media just called it a one game playoff.
But again, you are not letting the teams play it out for a title. You're basically excluding five teams. Who would you take this year if this happens:
UT beats OSU
UF beats OU
Utah
USC
Doesn't make sense.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:25 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
that sounds more like #1, unless i'm reading that wrong
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
none of these have been seriously considered by the committee, so i don't know why you keep bringing it up
I don't get why, either. You'd think the committee would love #3, but for whatever reason, they don't.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:26 pm to AlexLSU
quote:
Slow, edit #3 to where it doesn't suck so much arse. No one would ever pick that the way you have it.
dude, that's what they want to do
maybe not 5 BCS games, but at least 4
then they want to evaluate the 4 winners and pick the 2 playing for the title. that's EXACTLY what they want to do
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:27 pm to AlexLSU
quote:
But again, you are not letting the teams play it out for a title. You're basically excluding five teams. Who would you take this year if this happens:
UT beats OSU
UF beats OU
Utah
USC
Doesn't make sense.
Oh I'm not saying it's my preference...just what the original dialogue was when media and fans were discussing a alternative to determine a national champ.
But I do think it's the most likely scenario to happen if the presidents ever do decide to change the system because it will do the least harm to the bowls.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:28 pm to Obi-Wan Tiger
Okay.
IMO, that would cause more controversy than the way it is now. Could you imagine the USC bitching when UF and UT played? ESPN would explode.
IMO, that would cause more controversy than the way it is now. Could you imagine the USC bitching when UF and UT played? ESPN would explode.
Posted on 1/3/09 at 1:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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).
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News