Why we need a +1.

Use the BCS to Seed the top 4 teams, but revise the computer logic and share the formulas for all involved. OR, drop them entirely and let the AP back in.

First, it’s not a matter of “letting the AP back in”. The AP requested to be removed from the BCS, not the other way around. The AP decided that as a journalistic organization, it should not be involved in deciding who plays for the national championship.

Second, I definitely don’t think the computers should be dropped. They give the process some objectivity which the voters sorely lack at times. The computers actually look at all the games while the voters don’t. But I would think that the BCS would require that the programmers at least share the formulas with them or else get replaced. (And I also think that margin-of-victory should be allowed as a factor.)

and I am so sick of hearing all the arguments about which one should play on Jan 9th
Alabama or Oklahoma State. Now that the BCSNC has been set I am turning off ESPN for awhile because they will rehash this for a month now. It makes me wonder if the game being played in New Orleans had anything to do with who is playing in it…..after all there’s a lot of money to be made with both teams being so close by. I, as an Alabama fan, would have love to have seen them play OSU in a playoff game just to show them that it takes more than having a great offense to win a championship.

First, the “slippery slope” argument. Are the #5 teams going to be so powerful and make so much noise that this could lead to an 8-team playoff? The B1G, ACC, and Big East would have been left out this year, half of the BCS conferences.

Secondly, I think ticket sales might take a bit of a hit. What if, for example, Oregon and USC win the first two games and are set to meet 1 week later in the Orange Bowl for the national title? Would the Orange Bowl be able to sell those tickets? And would anyone really care outside of the west coast?

Third, I think having a month in anticipation of playing for it all really adds to the mystique surrounding it. It allows coaches to really game-plan and players to focus on one opponent (instead of worrying about the next one, then trying to think about two more in the other game).

Finally, I think it would only be fair to allow the winners to have 2 weeks to prepare for each other (and maybe more importantly, heal up). Winning the first game, then turning right around and having only 1 week to prepare (and heal up), not to mention the fan bases yet again having to turn in vacation time with only 1 week notice, would possibly be a bit too stressful.

That said, I think something needs to be done. Happy as I am, I do feel that OSU and Stanford (mostly because I like our guest “Cardinal????” that lurks around here) deserves at least a shot somehow, someway.

There just so happen to be 1 undefeated major team and 3 1-loss major teams, so everybody goes home happy after a +1.

That’s unusual. Usually there are 2 in the box, or 3, or 5, or 7, or whatever. Just because 2011 is a 4-in-the-box year doesn’t make a +1 always perfect.

Generally, I’d say it’s more important to make sure that deserving teams don’t get left out than to make sure that undeserving teams don’t get in. A dark horse or Cinderella entry can spice things up, just like it does in the dance.

I think 6 is the minimum number of teams to allow you to be reasonably certain you get in all the deserving candidates. 8 would be better, and 12 still better than that. 16 would be nice, too, but I think 12 might be the ideal number.

Still, 8 is good enough to ensure that you are generally going to get in everybody who deserves to get in. Of course there will still be controversy at the borderline no matter how many gets in, just as there’s always controversy over who gets into the basketball tournament, but nobody is going to weep too many bitter tears over the plight of the #9 team that doesn’t have any kind of decent claim for a national championship.

Couple more points:

Don’t give me the “season’s too long/finals/etc.” crap. It can be worker out.

Second, screw conferences. Putting conferences in the mix brings in a boatload of problems, and some of them are serious, since they involve leaving deserving teams out. That’s what we’re trying not to do. Conferences are for determining local pecking order, not national championships.

The season is a maximum of 14 games already, next stop: 15-game seasons. The more games you force the players into, the more careers get ended. 14 is a sensible enough max. Why push it? Mind you, I DON’T CARE ABOUT $$$$$$$$$$. I just dread the next Prothro-type ending. 14 games is grueling enough.

In a 4-team playoff, you only add 2 extra games to the finalists’ seasons. It sounds sensible until you consider that having a playoff amongst the top-4 in the nation nullifies the premise of conference championship games. I would see resistance from teams because they may have to cut one home game on the off-chance they make into the playoff.

People already bitch/moan/whine about how teams are ranked. What the hell would change when you rank teams the same way and then have the top-4 go into a playoff?

In years when more than 2 teams end up undefeated you have seeded games to pair it down to 2 undefeateds.

This year there would be no Plus 1, but if next year USC, Bama, and Clemson all go undefeated then USC & Clemson play in a bowl for the right to play Bama. If 4 teams go undefeated same thing but two games. I have never seen 5 undefeated teams but I guess in that unlikely event you would have to throw in an extra game or just go by BCS finish.

By the way small schools do not count unless they climb into the top 3 of BCS.

Andy Staples: Support of Big 12 athletic directors big boost for plus-one movement