A lot of really big bucks from the old days in Montana won't net 180. My dad shot a 35-inch buck in the 60s that is big, it doesn't. My younger brother shot a 31 inch buck in the 80s that is a big heavy buck its teeth were worn out, it doesn't. Many of the old dead bucks I have seen have too much trash to net well. There are hundreds of big bucks hanging in obscure places in MT that are not legit B&C bucks, even at 180. There were never more than a few that would net 190.
To me a legit net score is useful to weed out the bullshitters, but is a buck that misses the cutoff because of being unsymmetrical, or trashy, not big? I am not saying that B&C should change anything, just that their net minimums are not the determining factor if a buck is big or not.