This is why I don't get the Rose Bowl and Pac-10 (soon to be Pac-12) being so violently opposed to Plus-1. If we adopted Plus-1 in conjunction with going back to the old Bowl Coalition System, where Big Ten and Pac-10 (12) champs go the Rose Bowl, the SEC champ goes to the Sugar Bowl, Big 12 champ going to either Fiesta or Cotton bowls (depending on the school and their geography and preference) and Big East and ACC champs and Notre Dame and BYU floating between Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta depending on similar variables, THEN you play ONE more game the following week based on who finished #1 and #2, it's the best of both worlds. You already have the system in place. Rose Bowl would get what they wanted every year! Of course we know why; the Pac-10 (12) presidents know (rightly so) that Plus-1 puts us on the slippery slope to a wider tournament format, March Madness on grass in December, and the Pac-10 pointy-headed nerds just cannot have that, oh no!!! It would be a disgraceful tragedy, the end of college football as we know it! They're probably right. When the NCAA basketball tournament first came into being, it had 24 teams. We're now at what, 68? The fans are gonna go absolutely gaga when (not if) we finally get some kind of real postseason in college football. They are gonna want more and, inevitably, the format will be expanded.
The "+1" isn't a nice as a true seeded 4-team playoff, but it should be better than the 2-team system we have now. I'd think that the only rule that would be needed would be to prevent #1 from playing #2 in a bowl game - make them play other teams, and then whichever teams are ranked #1 and #2 after the bowls would meet up for the championship.
My only problem is how do you determine who gets in to the playoffs? The top 8 teams? An undefeated #9 could get left out which would cause further controversy. The only ways that I can think to do it fairly is to have all the conference champions in the playoff which would eliminate any controversy.
When they took the point differential out of the BCS formula, they took all of the fun of running up the score against weak opponents.
a Plus One fixes exactly nothing from what we currently have. '02 clear cut #1 and #2. no reason to have a plus 1 '03 USC wins Rose Bowl OU wins Fiesta Bowl LSU wins Sugar Bowl now for the +1, you got the exact same problem you had before the bowl games. '04 identical to '03, except use Auburn instead of LSU '05 wasn't needed. had a clear cut #1 and #2. '06 SEC, Big XII, Big East, all unbeaten, and none play each other with bowl alliances. Still got 3 unbeatens after bowls. So the plus one changes nothing from what we got now. '07 SEC, ACC, Big XII, Pac 10 and Big East Champs all had same record if more than 1 wins their Bowl game, you still got a cluster phuck just like we did without the plus one. '08 once again, Big XII, Pac 10, Big Ten and SEC champs all sittin there with same record. Big Ten/Pac 10 play each other, but you're still left with 3 teams to fill 2 slots. '09 SEC, Big XII, Big East, all unbeaten, and none play each other with bowl alliances. Still got 3 unbeatens after bowls. So the plus one changes nothing from what we got now.
The goal shouldn't be to eliminate any controversy - no playoff system is universally considered perfect. Look at the NFL - a team can finish 10-6 and miss the playoffs, while another team goes 8-8 and makes the playoffs. However, if I had to design an 8 team playoff, I'd probably do the following: 1) Come up with a rankings system that removes human biases. 2) Only teams in conferences with championship games or round-robin scheduling are eligible (to avoid the possibility of more than one undefeated team from the same conference, and Notre Dame would join a conference or not be eligible). 3) The top 4 ranked conference champions make it automatically. 4) Any undefeated conference champions not already in the playoffs make it. 5) Any remaining spots will be filled by the highest ranked teams remaining not yet in the playoffs. 6) The playoff games will be seeded by the rankings, and the 4 highest ranked teams will host the first round games. 7) The winners of those first round games move on to play on New Year's Day at 2 of the "big" bowl locations. 8) The winners of those second round games move on the play for the championship about a week later.
Margin of victory still counts. Whem P10, B10, and ND(well, not ND he he) run up the score like agains Akron, Ohio etc... Media goes ape sh!t, screams all over ESPN on how great (Michigan, OSU) is. And they fraudulently move up the polls which counts. Just saying. The tone dramatically changes when a media darling does something quite average/normal. When a really good team not in on the take does far more, you can hardly get an eyebrow raised from the commentators.
Please see my tweeks Not really possible, since computer ranking designers have to decide what stats to use. Instead, they should be more open about how their rankings work, and allow outside checkers to confirm that they are dealing straight. That would cover most of your concern here. So you essentially prohibit 11 team conferences? Not sure I agree. Perhaps you should restate to say that only conferences with a championship game or round-robin are eligible for automatic bids. Also, any system that doesn't allow ND to compete for national titles without joining a conference isn't realistic. They aren't joining a conference any time soon, and they are too important to the sport to just disregard. I agree with these. Not sure how feasible this is. A neutral site game here means two weeks of uncertainty in travel plans for both teams. It works for March Madness, but in football you are asking for 5-10 times the number of fans to travel (5-10K in basketball vs. 25-50K for football). And in Basketball, you have a chance to see two games for each trip. Already, we have seen examples of good fan bases not traveling all that well for conference CGs (LSU in 2007, pretty much any ACCCG). I would probably keep it at home sites at this round to start with. Your ideas are good overall. That's why they won't happen. GEAUX TIGERS
Yeah, it's just dripping with diplomacy. Can someone pm him with an anger management course or a how to communicate effectively course?
