quote:
I think that's doubtful, but even if we did, it's MUCH better than excluding a really good (and potentially undefeated) #3 team. IMHO, if you're not in the top 4 or 5 after conference title week, you're probably not good enough to play for the NC, which is why we should have a plus one.

All bullshite aside, a +1 would be terrible for college football. What would it have done this year? Failed, just like the BCS. Anyone who watched any of the Rose Bowl should see a +1 would not be a good idea. Too much influece from media dumbasses and others with an agenda. Did you hear Pussburger & frickstriet during the Rose Bowl pimping USC to play the winner of the BCS championship? Why USC? frick that shite. I'm telling you, a +1 isn't a good idea.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ZereauxSum

Lot 23E

Member since Nov 2008

10176 posts

Posted on 1/7/09 at 11:38 pm to Cornholio

quote:
What would it have done this year? Failed, just like the BCS. Anyone who watched any of the Rose Bowl should see a +1 would not be a good idea.

This year, USC wouldn't have been in it. I believe that according to the BCS standings it would have been UO vs Bama & UF vs TX. Winners play for the NC...not bad in my opinion and certainly an improvement over what we have.

On another note, you can't judge the system based on the results it would produce in one year. This year, I think as far as the NC game it got it right but you and I still know the current structure is crap because we have 10 years of performance to look at. A plus one will get it right the majority of the time.

I would LOVE to see something like the FCS model, but the greedy arse bowl commissioners won't have that. The only way to do something sane and keep the bowls in tact is a plus one.

0 ...

Report Post

More Sports - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board