http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3185000 looks like only the PAC 10 and Big 10 stand in the way. funny that the 2 most overrated conferences would be the ones opposed to proving themselves in a winner-take-all scenario. Could it be because they know Ohio State or Michigan would never have a chance to win 2, big-money games in a row?
The rest of the conferences should force them to do this. If they all stick together the Pac10 and Big10 would have no choice.
Hm, ouch. and double ouch. Im not sure the big 10 is overrated. Not many people outside of the big 10 give it any credit.
your 3rd best team, Illinois got destroyed in the Rose. The SEC's 3rd best team (on the standings only), Georgia, is contending for a national championship. I'm not one of those rebels that dislikes the Big 10. I just think that the Kentuckys and Mississippi States of the world (the bottom half of the SEC) would destroy the Northwesterns and Purdues of the world.
There's always a team with an argument. When they announce the March Madness teams (all 64 of them), one of the first things to follow is the talking heads' listing of who got left out. I personally think an 8-team bracket would be perfect, but the 4-team format would certainly be better than what we have now. As for the Big 10 and Pac 10, let the rest agree to a 4-year deal without them, and I bet you'd see those two conferences come on board the next time.
I don't think the other 4 conferences could force them. The Big Ten and PAC-10 could go back to sending their champs to the Rose Bowl (something they indicated they would do). A four team playoff that excludes a third of the big conferences would be worse than the current setup by a large margin. The Rose Bowl is the sticky issue. The current setup has already diluted its prestige somewhat. In a seeded plus one format (the one the other BCS bowls would probably like), the Rose would almost certainly lose the tradition of Big Ten vs. PAC-10 almost entirely. It would rotate from being a semi-final game (which would seem like a big step down) and a bowl taking on teams outside of the top 4. That said, I think that there are ways to preserve tradition and go to a plus-one format (anything more than a plus-one is unrealistic because it would likely lose more money than it would gain). 1. The bowls could be played like normal. Everyone would be reranked after New Years Day and 1 vs. 2 could play a week later. Problem with this approach is that it wouldn't also solve a lot, and could even complicate matters more in some years. 2. You could have 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3 the week after the regular season ended. After those games were done, the bowls could be announced. This would keep everyone going to just one bowl game and I think would be a good compromise. Problem is there isn't an incentive for the current BCS bowls to support this change (outside maybe the Rose). All in all, I know I'm in the minority, but I actually like the system. It's not perfect, but there has only been one undefeated BCS team not to make it (Auburn), and if a team doesn't go undefeated, I don't think they have the right to complain. The current system also preserves the tradition of the bowls and half the teams finishing on a positive note. I really wouldn't want to see that change.
No one basically:rofl::rofl::rofl: Thats one I will agree with you on. But I think most "fans" are in agreement that we "need" a playoff of some sort...this is all about $$$$
Yeah forgot to add noone, in a virtual homegame vs. USC in the coliseum. I personally like the way it is, but that miiight be cause OSU benifited greatly from it this year. So ask me again in a couple.
Then exclude them. It's all "Mythical" anyway. If they don't want to be part of the solution, then they must be part of the problem.
