Posted on 01/08/2008 7:50:51 AM PST by meandog
***I can’t figure out how....***
Join the club.
It depends. If you don't have a seeded "plus one," then you're right. But as a matter of practicality, a "plus one" would require a seeded tournament--that's the only way a plus one could work, because otherwise, what's the point of the plus one game if it isn't the "best" two teams?
If there isn't seeding, try this scenario on for size: let's say that the #1 team is Michigan and the #2 team is USC--the lone two undefeated teams in the nation. Tradition meets these two teams in the Rose Bowl, where they would play their matchup. After they play the Rose Bowl, what's the point of a "plus one" game? The best two teams have already played--you force the winner of the Rose to play a meaningless plus one game against an inferior opponent, who has, say, one loss. That's not appealing and clouds the national title picture.
On the other hand, if there's seeding, you don't guarantee the Pac-10 and Big Ten a spot in the Rose Bowl, because that's part of the seeded tournament. That makes Big Ten and Pac-10 people sad, so they block the "plus one" game.
Okay - what does the whole “plus one” mean? I’m starting to get a little lost.
Of course, I used to joke when someone asked me how the BCS worked - “how should I know - they seem to be making it up as they go along.”
The south see college football as a religion rather than a sport. The fun of college football is the IF”S and ‘wait till next year.’
And I enjoy every minute of it! Ya’ll just wait till next year Georgia will be the “National Champions” lol My dad always says "A football takes funny bounces and that is not going to change."
Here's the "plus one" as I understand it. Each of the four BCS bowls play their games as they normally do, in either a seeded or non-seeded tournament. Following the four BCS Bowl games, there is another round of voting (AP, Harris, Coaches, and BCS) and then two of the winners of their bowl games play in a national title game.
Somehow, this is supposed to produce a clear national champion, but don't ask me how. For instance, a seeded tournament this year would have worked out as follows: Ohio State v. Kansas in a bowl (Rose, Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta); LSU v. USC; Va Tech v. Mizzou; and Oklahoma v. Georgia.
Note that Big East champ West Virginia is left out of the discussion while Georgia, which didn't win the SEC East, is in the running. All those teams play their games and there is another vote. Assuming that both Ohio State and LSU win their game, they'd go on to play the "plus one" game. I'm not really sure what this would accomplish, given that Georgia and West Virginia are still shut out of the national title talk, despite having a "plus one" game.
I think it's a weak system that isn't really much different than the one that we have now. The only advantage that it offers is a chance to get one more week of voting if the number 1 or 2 team happens to lose in its bowl game. Otherwise, it's just pushing the title game back a week.
I have to say, I watched more college ball this year than ever before, simply because these kids play to win, the games have more fire to me and there’s jusy, oh I don’t know, so much joy in the stands.
Of course, the zebras - same s***, different day, although they seem to be better than the pros.
My theory on the pros is to make zebra a full-time profession (as baseball or basketball) instead of these doctor/lawyer/accountant wazoos who go back to their “regular” jobs on Monday after FUBARing an important game on Sunday with garbage calls. And this season had PLENTY of them.
My favorite remark re the Zebras of all time comes from Rush — a caller on Friday asked him to explain the Tuck Rule. His answer “The Tuck Rule was a penalty designed to keep the Raiders out of the Super Bowl.”
***If there isn’t seeding, try this scenario on for size: let’s say that the #1 team is Michigan and the #2 team is USC—the lone two undefeated teams in the nation.***
There isn’t even the need for a BCS if it is that easy. It is when it gets complicated like this year. And, if the BCS isn’t going to seriously try to find the “best” team that year, then they need change the name. I might suggest B$S.
I will admit that your scenerio of simply getting the top 8 rankings has its problems. Somehow, though, I don’t think any plus 1 format would be that simple. Take the Pac-10, Big-10, Big-12, SEC, ACC, & Big East champs. Add 2 at large, just like the BCS WAS, and you have a credible plus format. If you go 8-4-2, then it really doesn’t matter if you have a traditional rose bowl save for the fact that you guarantee the Pac-10/ Big-10 winner a final 4 spot.
But, then, again, the Rose bowl wasn’t even the most exciting game Jan 1 and that should bother a great many Pac-10 fans. It used to be that the bowl was a treat for fans and teams. Now, a more discriminating fan wants more.
I think the Pac-10 and Big-10 need to realize that we are just 1 debacle BCS away from something and they might ought to be a little more proactive in shaping that something or they might not much care for the end result.
I remember when Cal was ranked No. 2. Okay, I WENT to Cal, I would give my eye teeth to see Cal in the Rose Bowl. I wear blue and gold. I drive my friends batty between August and November.
But there was no way, no how, that I thought Cal was the second-best college team in the nation. I figured they were setting them up for a BIIIIIG drop when they lost.
Which they did. That week.
“it’s hard to justify a team playing for the National Championship if they can’t even win their own conference”
In a sense, I agree. Mizzou won the big 12 North. They didn’t close the deal for the Conference Championship, which they lost at a neutral site. They Won at Nebraska (then ranked)Mizzou beat Kansas State (then ranked) Missouri won at Kansas (ranked #2) finished 7-1 in conference (best in the big 12) all in all beating 6 ranked teams. I am not sure where the other BCS contenders were at against ranked teams. But I know several lost to unranked teams. something Missouri did not do.
All in all, it also appears that the Big 12 is the strongest conference overall in ranking with 4 teams finishing in the top 10 final rankings and Texas Tech finishing 23rd. Missouri finished 4th, the highest non BCS team. They shut down the running game of Arkansas (who beat LSU) and turned out a record rushing yard performance themselves. Incidently, Running Back Tony Temple, was injured and did not play Oklahoma the first time.
We can argue conference rankings till we are blue. But the fact is, Missouri finished 4th in the final rankings, the highest non BCS team. And the only non BCS team whose loss was to a ranked team, with the exception of Hawaii, who was disappointing out of their element.
Strength of schedule, etc., etc., etc.
There is NO bowl like the Rose Bowl. There is no place to play a BIG game like the Rose Bowl. There is NO better town than Pasadena to host a game.... that said, The $$$ made on the Pac-10 vs Big-10 is gonna be hard to replace for the schools..... They should play the Rose Bowl between the two and if one of the teams is ranked in the top 4 for the BCS Championship playoff then a replacement is picked by standings....
Look at USC’s schedule.... for next season! That is why your Buckeyes stink. Pansy schedules. USC plays 5 straight up bowl teams to start the year.... UNHEARD OF! Mark this post! C U NEXT YEAR.... HERE!
Partially true, the running game of Arkansas largely shut itself down, the pro tryouts you know, were coming up soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.