[NU Sports] Big Ten image ...

[Jonathan Hodges]

Controversial, yes, mostly because it's hard to differentiate between a
bunch of good teams most years.  Hence, the argument for a >2 team playoff.
But, as most BCS apologists scream, it's an improvement on the old days of
#1 & #2 playing other random teams in a bowl game.  If people want a strong
on-field anti-BCS argument, hope that they end up with 5+ undefeated teams
this year (Alabama/LSU winner, Oklahoma/OK St winner, Wisconsin, Stanford, &
Boise St).  That would certainly get more of the public on the pro-playoff
side.

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Hodges
Contributor, HailToPurple
Web: http://www.hailtopurple.com/jhodges/
Twitter: @hailtopurple
Email: j-hodges at alumni.northwestern.edu



On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Mike Nolan <nolan at tssi.com> wrote:

> > Overall, the BCS formula has generally done what it was intended to do:
> put
> > the #1 & #2 teams in the title game.
>
> I will grant that the BCS has done a pretty good job getting the #1 team
> but its record on selecting the #2 team has been, well, controversial.
> --
> Mike Nolan
>
>