Like I've said many times, I like the reasoning of the system. I think it's solid. But when the reasoning doesn't apply, then why make the bet? There's nothing magical about the system that suddenly makes every bet a good bet. The system is only good because for most of the plays under the system, you can apply the reasoning. Now, I also understand that people prefer more simplistic approaches because it is less work, and that they may not have the time to do additional anaylsis or for whatever reason, just following the system is "good enough". That's fine and I respect that. But how can you argue with someone just trying to give some additional insight?

Anyways, enough of repeating the same argument, for those that are not just blindly following the system, here's a play that doesn't fall under the "system" but follows the same strategy. Evansville -1 vs Purdue (Matchbook). Purdue is the "brand name" school. Purdue is 2-2 and Evansville is 1-2. Evansville somehow is favored. Before everyone jumps on me, let me say that I'm just throwing it out there. Do whatever you want with that information (and for those who care, I have a play on Evansville).