T1B

I will believe it when I see it.

I would bet anything that it starts with Plus One. That's the initial plan to which everyone seems resigned.

LSU would've played Stanford in the Rose Bowl on January 2nd, Bama would've played Okie St in the Fiesta Bowl that same night, then the two winners would've met yesterday in the Sugar Bowl.

Hardly even a ripple in the pond, scheduling-wise. No lengthening of the season, no precious "student-athletes away from class too long" arguments, only two teams having to play merely one extra game...just common sense.

TPTB are really against the idea of a sixteen-team playoff, and Plus One seems the least odious to them. I have to say that in most years Plus One is all we ever would've needed anyway, this year included.

Van wrote:I have to say that in most years Plus One is all we ever would've needed anyway, this year included.

Maybe so, but I have a feeling that Dinsdale might disagree.

Oregon had two losses, and were ranked outside the Top Four. Tough shit for them.

Wouldn't that have been epic, though, had the Plus One title game pitted Stanford against Bama, two teams that didn't even win their own conference?

Then again, why not? It happens in every other sport.

Van wrote:Oregon had two losses, and were ranked outside the Top Four. Tough shit for them.

Wouldn't that have been epic, though, had the Plus One title game pitted Stanford against Bama, two teams that didn't even win their own conference?

Then again, why not? It happens in every other sport.

I would definintely like to have seen Stanford against either of the teams that played last night.

Van wrote:LSU would've played Stanford in the Rose Bowl on January 2nd, Bama would've played Okie St in the Fiesta Bowl that same night, then the two winners would've met yesterday in the Sugar Bowl.

I think Wisky would have still played Oregon in the Rose Bowl, because that's how the Rose Bowl rolls. I think with the plus 1, maybe the Cotton gets elevated to host LSU and Stanford. You need one more bowl added or you squeeze out Michigan and Va Tech. Or some other two teams.

That's fine. Use whichever bowls you wish, rotating the title game between them.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Van wrote:LSU would've played Stanford in the Rose Bowl on January 2nd, Bama would've played Okie St in the Fiesta Bowl that same night, then the two winners would've met yesterday in the Sugar Bowl.

I think Wisky would have still played Oregon in the Rose Bowl, because that's how the Rose Bowl rolls. I think with the plus 1, maybe the Cotton gets elevated to host LSU and Stanford. You need one more bowl added or you squeeze out Michigan and Va Tech. Or some other two teams.

Agreed. I think you elevate the Cotton Bowl to BCS status, then make the Championship game the Plus One game. This year, it would have been LSU vs. Stanford in the Sugar Bowl, and Alabama vs. Okie State in the Cotton Bowl. Winners in the Plus One game.

Not to mention that under that scenario, the Fiesta Bowl probably rolls with a Boise State vs. Kansas State matchup, rather than the Michigan-Virginia Tech matchup we got in the Sugar Bowl.

Over Jim Delaney's dead body.

PSUFAN wrote:Over Jim Delaney's dead body.

That can be arranged.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:Oregon had two losses, and were ranked outside the Top Four. Tough shit for them.

Wouldn't that have been epic, though, had the Plus One title game pitted Stanford against Bama, two teams that didn't even win their own conference?

Then again, why not? It happens in every other sport.

I would definintely like to have seen Stanford against either of the teams that played last night.

Not to hurt your feelings Mikey, but last night, 'Bama would have probably beaten Stanford around 45-10. I'm not so sure Stanford would have scored.

Folks - we saw the best two teams last night. Y'all know enough about football to know we did, too. For any of you to dispute that is to freely admit that you're full of shit.

That being said - ya - we at least need a plus one. I wish would could get them to do more than that.

If I see you I'll fight you.

Van wrote:Oregon had two losses, and were ranked outside the Top Four. Tough shit for them.

They beat Stanford and won the conference.

Their OOC loss to LSU in a pseudo LSU home game shouldn't have kept them out of a 4 team playoff.

And I would have been against 'Bama being in this 4 team playoff.

Tough shit. Doesn't matter what you would prefer, or which teams you think don't deserve to be there. Plus One will use the top four BCS seeds, period, and those seeds this year were LSU, Bama, Okie St and Stanford.

Besides, it wasn't the LSU loss that killed Oregon's shot at a top four seed, it was their loss at home to USC.

Papa Willie wrote: Not to hurt your feelings Mikey, but last night, 'Bama would have probably beaten Stanford around 45-10. I'm not so sure Stanford would have scored.

Fucking puh-leez.

Don't get me wrong -- Bama's defense played an outstanding game. And it's a little easier for a defense to play an outstanding game when the opposing offense doesn't show up (I know, chicken/egg).

But regardless of Bama's D, LSU's offense was fucking awful. Would have had trouble scoring on Washington or Baylor last night, the way the played.

Wisconsin/Bama would have been a fun game, interesting mix of styles and strengths.

Van wrote:TPTB are really against the idea of a sixteen-team playoff dimishing their school-fleecing cash grabbing opportunities, and Plus One seems the least odious to them the best way to keep their hands in the cookie jar while placating fans.

FTFY


sorry........I've been reading Death to the BCS occasionally on breaks at work.

Van wrote:Besides, it wasn't the LSU loss that killed Oregon's shot at a top four seed, it was their loss at home to USC.

I agree.

Stanford also lost at home to Oregon.

How meaningful is a season when a conference Champion is left out of the national title "playoff"

The plus 1 is going to create even more of a shitstorm than what is there now.

Sudden Sam wrote:Gotta get rid of the computers completely.

You're just talking about the BCS, right Cletus?

You realize Sam, that in most 4 team scenarios Bama would be on the outside lookin in?

Not trying to be a hater, but yes. There should be some criteria. Winning ones conference would be a good jumping off point. Bama benefitted from the current system, but one selecting four playoff teams to compete for the marbles may leave them out. It could be argued that LSU/bama part one sufficed as a play in game.

WolverineSteve, if that were the case, then which four conference champions would get the nod? Are we really going to toss some three-loss ACC or Big East team into the mix while leaving out a dominant one-loss team like Bama that didn't win their conference?

I don't claim to have answers. Having given it little to no thought I would say we need all conferences to have CCG's or none at all, for starters. Then you rank the Champs of those games. This year it would have been LSU, Oregon, Whiskey, and then we're in trouble. The Big12 needs to get a couple more teams and Okie St would have been the choice, though maybe being conference champ sans the 13th game would suffice. My point is that UM vs OSU would count as a play in, just like Texas vs. OU, SC vs. Oregon/Stanford/Cal, LSU vs. Whoever.

If they move to a 4-team playoff there is pretty much zero chance it's only going to involve conference champs.

Sudden Sam wrote:

WolverineSteve wrote:I don't claim to have answers. Having given it little to no thought I would say we need all conferences to have CCG's or none at all, for starters. Then you rank the Champs of those games. This year it would have been LSU, Oregon, Whiskey, and then we're in trouble. The Big12 needs to get a couple more teams and Okie St would have been the choice, though maybe being conference champ sans the 13th game would suffice. My point is that UM vs OSU would count as a play in, just like Texas vs. OU, SC vs. Oregon/Stanford/Cal, LSU vs. Whoever.

Yet LSU had already beaten Oregon, as well as Alabama.

So a rematch might have been inevitable in that case as well.

I can understand the argument that you should at least win your conference to get into a playoff, yet how can you allow an ACC or Big East champ in and leave out the 2nd best team in the country?

Seems that no matter the format we asshats will be able to have similar arguments well into the future.

Sudden Sam wrote:

WolverineSteve wrote: Seems that no matter the format we asshats will be able to have similar arguments well into the future.

Yep. There's no perfect solution, that's for sure.

Used to be fun arguing after the bowls, but that method was really shoddy. The excitement was that so many things had to go your way sometimes to push your way to the top.

There'll always be disagreements, but it's always fun.

God, I already miss it!

Can't wait for our opener against your Wolverines. Should be a helluva game.

Not sure what you guys have coming back, or that it matters, reloading and all. Our defense should be as good as it was this year and the offense could be better, second year for Denard in the system.

It'll be fun, I hope we can be competitive. It's a good barometer for Hoke's program. Michigan should have a top 5ish class incoming and very good ground work laid for '13.

Donks are having problems stopping the Pats' running game.

How bout dem Niners !!!