I know we already have a Plus 1 thread...but this warrants it's own thread...since it's more about USC than a plus 1 system. http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=245876 Check it out...they say they will leave BCS if a plus one is implemented.:dis:
I thought this was Big 10 week?? :hihi: I say Let 'em walk. Without their and the Big 10 support though, what would be the chances of it going through.
$$$ talks...and I can't imagine they wouldn't jump on board if it was seriously pushed. I say call their bluff. Sounds to me like Richdog said...plus I love his avatar!:thumb:
The article quotes the Pac10 comish Tom Hansen. Where does it say anything from either CPC, President Steven Sample, or AD Mike Garrett? Hansen is probably the most unpopular, least liked commissioner in the history of the Pac. Take his comments with a grain of salt. I know for a fact that Dr. Sample doesn't favor a +1 but he's not exactly a "football" guy. He's about the academics and always will be. There's likely more pressure from the bottom of the Pac than at the top.
After reading a lot of the discussion, you begin to see a bigger picture. It's possible that teams will still be screwed since it is still, essentially, the BCS. Ultimately, you'd have to devise a plan to take care of the problem with clear-cut conference champs. ND has no right to be automatically included in any scenario. This past season, we were lucky to have the media ridin' ND's cock, because if not, LSU would have NOT garnered ANY respect for the demolition in the SB. There are way too many problems to work out. A plus one might work if the BCS was implemented to where the actual best teams were paired together. I actually think that the BCS has done some good for the game. We've seen a lot of unique pairings in title games. OU and LSU in 2003 for instance. Although everyone wanted to see USC and LSU, the BCS actually could allow a team such Louisville or WVU into the title game.
If my memory is correct...the AP wanted OU vs USC in the BCS game cuz they didn't think LSU could hang w/ those guys (AP ppl have no appreciation of defense and are just offense/scoring whores). It was only after we clobbered OU that the AP started writing it should have been USC and LSU - yeah, whatever.:dis:
More about USC, how do you come with that? USC isn't even mentioned it the article. And, if you think about it, Tom Hansen is correct in regarding the BCS not "fixing" any thing with a "plus one" model. Let's take the 2004 season BCS final poll standings for a "plus one" senario. 1. USC 2. Oklahoma 3. Auburn 4. Texas 5. California 6. Utah 7. Georgia 8. Virginia Tech We have 3 teams that are undefeated, USC, OU and AU. In a true playoff format, USC would play #8 Virginia Tech, OU plays Georgia, Auburn plays Utah and Texas plays California. Now then, USC beats VT in a sloppy game by 1 point, OU beats Georgia by 6, Auburn beats Utah by 10 and Texas beats Cal in a land slide. Which two teams are the two best? The only way to sort out the mess is the go back to where they were before... The computers. What has changed? One thing and one thing only... The BCS computers will be used one more time to rank the teams after the bowl games, instead of before the bowl games, to determine the two teams playing in the BCS CG. Tom Hansen is correct, the "Plus one" model doesn't change anything......
The best thing to do would be a 2+2 playoff... then a +1.... So in that Above scenario, it would be #1 USC vs. #Texas and #2 OU vs. #3 Auburn, then a championship between the winners... Of coures, everyone can argue that Utah or someone else deserves the #4 spot, but screw them...
