Yes it does not solve the problem, but it's better than what we have, even if it is just a baby step. (1) Good - Plus One with best 2 BCS ranked teams playing each other a week later Texas would have played Florida to settle it all. Better than what transpired. (2) Better - Plus One with 2 BCS bowl games serving as semi-final games Texas is included and Alabama would have had a 2nd shot at winning it all. (3) Best - 4 BCS bowl games serving as quarterfinal games Texas, USC, Utah and Penn State (who's only loss was on a last second FG in a conference road game) all have shots.
This Sporting News article has a published date of July, 2007. So is this a forum version of the History Channel?
There is no link for it, so I don't know. It was copied from another site and I assumed it was current stuff. Doesn't really matter, this will always be their stance regardless.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=245876 It is 2007. I thought something didnt sound right about Machen. It was two years ago that he tried making a proposal to other SEC Presidents.
And a good stance it is. Who would have been the plus one this year: Fla vs Utah, Fla vs USC, or Fla vs Texas? Now let's say USC has another good season next year. Does anyone think they might have an advantage playing the Rose Bowl and the plus one in Pasadena? The plus one isn't a cure. It's just a different bandaid on the same wound.
Yes I understand his reasoning, that would pretty much put an end to MNC's by a Pac 10 team as they would then have to play two good teams a year to earn the crystal.
