timthedeac
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,795
- Reaction score
- 91
I think the article is a little confusing. My understanding is that a plus one model and a four team playoff were different animals. A four team playoff would be better (IMO) than a plus one. In the plus one, one extra game would be played after all of the bowl games. This sounds pretty dumb, but is a way to protect the Rose Bowl. A four team playoff takes the top four teams and pits them against each other.
I think the article is a little confusing. My understanding is that a plus one model and a four team playoff were different animals. A four team playoff would be better (IMO) than a plus one. In the plus one, one extra game would be played after all of the bowl games. This sounds pretty dumb, but is a way to protect the Rose Bowl. A four team playoff takes the top four teams and pits them against each other.
I think the article is a little confusing. My understanding is that a plus one model and a four team playoff were different animals. A four team playoff would be better (IMO) than a plus one. In the plus one, one extra game would be played after all of the bowl games. This sounds pretty dumb, but is a way to protect the Rose Bowl. A four team playoff takes the top four teams and pits them against each other.
I've never understood the sanctity of the Rose Bowl. Who gives a shit? So you won the Rose Bowl and showed you were the best team amongst two generally mediocre and (at least as to one of them) extremely boring conferences - yippee. Other than the one played about 2 weeks ago, I couldn't tell you who played in or won any previous Rose Bowls other than naming some Big 10 and Pac 10 teams that were generally successful in the era in question. Don't they realize they could make a ton more money if that game were part of a playoff that had some actual meaning attached to the result?
I think I'd rather see the 4 team playoff. A plus-1 allows for 1, 2, and 3 to all win their bowl games.
True, but it also allows for a chance for all of those teams to lose their bowl games as well.
I think the plus-one is the better option and would be awesome.
But I think a bigger problem is fixing the BCS formula. In particular, removing the coaches poll.
And also releasing the formulas actually used in the computer polls, as well as including margin of victory in those formulas.
The Rose Bowl isn't about making as much money as possible - as part of the Tournament of Roses Association, the Rose Bowl is designed to showcase both the Tournament of Roses New Years' Day Parade and to highlight the community of Pasadena as a whole. In other words, its the BCS Bowl that actually does what it is supposed to do as a non-profit organization.
As for all of the arguments about tradition - the only thing that compares to the Rose Bowl in terms of how people make a stink whenever it changes is the ACC Tournament. Look at how everyone on these bowls growls and grumbles that the league needs to go back to eight teams and all the games need to be played in Greensboro and you start to see where fans in the Big Ten and Pac-12 feel about the Rose Bowl.
No. It'll bring back the days of the 90s when it wasn't enough to just beat your opponent by a couple of scores, you had to keep your starters in and run up the score or risk losing ground in the polls. Terrible idea.
No. It'll bring back the days of the 90s when it wasn't enough to just beat your opponent by a couple of scores, you had to keep your starters in and run up the score or risk losing ground in the polls. Terrible idea.