Plus-one would create same problems

[Coach Hank Crisp]

Click here for link

So you think a plus-one would solve all of college football's problems, or at the very least, it would be a step in the right direction?

Be careful what you wish for.

A slew of the biggest and most powerful athletic directors met in New York on Wednesday and discussed possible changes to the way the business of college football is run.

There's talk about switching around the BCS games and changing up the system. The idea of eliminating the automatic bids is on the table. And, creating the biggest splash, there might be some movement to change the way college football determines a national champion by using a plus-one system.

[Catch Prothro]

Click here for link

So you think a plus-one would solve all of college football's problems, or at the very least, it would be a step in the right direction?

Be careful what you wish for.

A slew of the biggest and most powerful athletic directors met in New York on Wednesday and discussed possible changes to the way the business of college football is run.

There's talk about switching around the BCS games and changing up the system. The idea of eliminating the automatic bids is on the table. And, creating the biggest splash, there might be some movement to change the way college football determines a national champion by using a plus-one system.

Now that their teams are being excluded, instead of trumping other conferences, the PAC12 and Big12 appear to be jumping on the Plus-One bandwagon.  Here is Stanford's AD: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-athleticdirectors-playoffs   Staples' article mentioning Big12 support:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/12/07/img-forum-plus-one-ncaa/?xid=cnnbin

I don't think a plus one will create any new problems, and it will include more teams in the BCS Championship decision.  Also, it is good for the SEC, especially those years where teams beat each other up and no one survives without a loss, or for those years like this year and the Bama/Florida years where the SEC could have two teams out of four.  Plus, more money for the SEC, due to the extra game.  So overall I support the idea.

Any type of championship is going to exclude some schools,and there will always be some noise about it, but increasing the number of possible participants, being more inclusive, will only add to the legitimacy of the championship.

[Coach Hank Crisp]

Click here for link

So you think a plus-one would solve all of college football's problems, or at the very least, it would be a step in the right direction?

Be careful what you wish for.

A slew of the biggest and most powerful athletic directors met in New York on Wednesday and discussed possible changes to the way the business of college football is run.

There's talk about switching around the BCS games and changing up the system. The idea of eliminating the automatic bids is on the table. And, creating the biggest splash, there might be some movement to change the way college football determines a national champion by using a plus-one system.

Now that their teams are being excluded, instead of trumping other conferences, the PAC12 and Big12 appear to be jumping on the Plus-One bandwagon.  Here is Stanford's AD: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-athleticdirectors-playoffs   Staples' article mentioning Big12 support:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/12/07/img-forum-plus-one-ncaa/?xid=cnnbin

I don't think a plus one will create any new problems, and it will include more teams in the BCS Championship decision.  Also, it is good for the SEC, especially those years where teams beat each other up and no one survives without a loss, or for those years like this year and the Bama/Florida years where the SEC could have two teams out of four.  Plus, more money for the SEC, due to the extra game.  So overall I support the idea.

Any type of championship is going to exclude some schools,and there will always be some noise about it, but increasing the number of possible participants, being more inclusive, will only add to the legitimacy of the championship.

I support it.

Takes away more of the chances that baised voters can vote another school into BCS NCG, like trying to vote in OKSU in NCG this year.

Just because voters wanted OKSU to have a chance. Well it's not about giving OKSU another chance ( they blew their in Iowa)!

The BCS is about getting the best two teams

Put in a system.

Keep people's hands off of the system and let it work.

[ricky023]

Click here for link

So you think a plus-one would solve all of college football's problems, or at the very least, it would be a step in the right direction?

Be careful what you wish for.

A slew of the biggest and most powerful athletic directors met in New York on Wednesday and discussed possible changes to the way the business of college football is run.

There's talk about switching around the BCS games and changing up the system. The idea of eliminating the automatic bids is on the table. And, creating the biggest splash, there might be some movement to change the way college football determines a national champion by using a plus-one system.

Now that their teams are being excluded, instead of trumping other conferences, the PAC12 and Big12 appear to be jumping on the Plus-One bandwagon.  Here is Stanford's AD: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-athleticdirectors-playoffs   Staples' article mentioning Big12 support:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/12/07/img-forum-plus-one-ncaa/?xid=cnnbin

I don't think a plus one will create any new problems, and it will include more teams in the BCS Championship decision.  Also, it is good for the SEC, especially those years where teams beat each other up and no one survives without a loss, or for those years like this year and the Bama/Florida years where the SEC could have two teams out of four.  Plus, more money for the SEC, due to the extra game.  So overall I support the idea.

Any type of championship is going to exclude some schools,and there will always be some noise about it, but increasing the number of possible participants, being more inclusive, will only add to the legitimacy of the championship.

I support it.

Takes away more of the chances that baised voters can vote another school into BCS NCG, like trying to vote in OKSU in NCG this year.

Just because voters wanted OKSU to have a chance. Well it's not about giving OKSU another chance ( they blew their in Iowa)!

The BCS is about getting the best two teams

Put in a system.

Keep people's hands off of the system and let it work.

  for you. Keeping hands off of the system and let it work is the right idea but? Can we truly keep hands off of it? Hey Coach hank, good one and I appluad ya for this. RTR!

[McBaman]

BCS should continue to be about making sure the two best teams play in the NC game.  IMHO, having four teams in a +1 format goes a lot further toward insuring that.  There will still be debate and politiciking about who is the last team in, but that will be about who's #4 instead of who's #2.

I'm guessing the eight teams in a +1 will prove to be too unweildy.

[Catch Prothro]

BCS should continue to be about making sure the two best teams play in the NC game.  IMHO, having four teams in a +1 format goes a lot further toward insuring that.  There will still be debate and politiciking about who is the last team in, but that will be about who's #4 instead of who's #2.

I'm guessing the eight teams in a +1 will prove to be too unweildy.

Eight teams would be a +2 format.  As you said, BCS should be about making sure the best two teams compete for the NC.  I'm not convinced yet that using 8 teams, instead of 4, would dramatically increase the likelihood of accomplishing that.

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...