The Finally Four

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 04, 2012 6:14 am

BCS finally gets it right

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7877 ... gets-right

Yep, they did it: Beginning in 2014, we have a four-team playoff. This was the best solution possible, with possible being the key word.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Fri May 04, 2012 1:34 pm

You included A & M. You should be preparing for waves of uncontrolled laughter.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Fri May 04, 2012 2:32 pm

Why 4? It should be left the way it is with Cal winning the national championship every year after they lose the Holiday Bowl.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:20 pm

The other cool thing they did was lock up January 1 again for the semis, regardless of what day of the week it happens to fall on.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri May 04, 2012 8:43 pm

Not that I'm against a four team playoff. I'm not.

But really, Rick Reilly, I'd like to see YOU hanging from a lamppost.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri May 04, 2012 9:07 pm

Mikey, what is it with some people's vitriol towards Reilly? One of the people for whom I edit is an avid sports fan, and he too just cannot stand Reilly.

I don't get it. What's it all about?

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri May 04, 2012 11:29 pm

Van wrote:BCS finally inching toward, (but coming up way short of), a solution that everyone else seems to know is long overdue.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/7877 ... gets-right

Yep, they did it: Beginning in 2014, we have a four-team playoff. This was the best solution possible, with possible being the key word.

With grade school arithmetic, they could have figured out a 16 team playoff....THAT would have been a START.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sat May 05, 2012 12:47 am

I much prefer four to sixteen here, and there was never any chance of this group agreeing upon a sixteen-team solution. Four was as good as it was ever going to get.

Maybe in the future they might see their way to an expanded playoffs, but it wasn't going to happen now.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Sat May 05, 2012 3:12 am

Sudden Sam wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:You included A & M. You should be preparing for waves of uncontrolled laughter.
I did that 'cause I couldn't make myself include Auburn.

at work there was someone walking by with an Auburn hat on. I asked him if he lost a bet or something to be wearing that hat. he said he had a mizzou hat, too, but he ha to rep his tigers. "wrong tigers" I finished with.

all the teams you mentioned were sec west. they can't beat up on one another and all be in the playoff. and a&M would have to go into a time machine to get their decent teams from 94.

M2 · Post by M2 » Sat May 05, 2012 9:10 am

Bizzarofelice wrote: and a&M would have to go into a time machine to get their decent teams from 94.

Word.

Cal 45... Texas A & M...10

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Sat May 05, 2012 12:57 pm

Go ahead and savor those historic Holiday Bowl victories.

Then get back to us when you make it to the Rose Bowl. Cal doesn't even have to win.

Maybe we'll care.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Van wrote:I much prefer four to sixteen here, and there was never any chance of this group agreeing upon a sixteen-team solution. Four was as good as it was ever going to get.

Maybe in the future they might see their way to an expanded playoffs, but it wasn't going to happen now.

How is this MUCH better? You still have the beauty contest to determine the "final four". The beauty contest will continue to reward those that have Div1AA schools on their schedules and those that are ranked without playing a friggin game to start the season. IF as good as it was ever going to get means a tad less stench, yeah, maybe, I guess....

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun May 06, 2012 12:23 am

You're dealing with the sludgy monolith that is BTPCF Higher Think, so try to look at it this way...

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Mon May 07, 2012 6:25 am

Relying on rankings while not taking the schedule making privileges away from the cowardly schools and this is not a step forward, just another step sideways.

Laxplayer · Post by **Laxplayer** » Mon May 07, 2012 3:17 pm

2011 TEXAS 21 Cal 10
2004 Texas Tech 45 Cal 31

Terry in Crapchester · Mon May 07, 2012 3:23 pm

It will go to sixteen eventually, once the powers that be realize how much revenue a playoff is going to generate.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Mon May 07, 2012 3:28 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:You included A & M. You should be preparing for waves of uncontrolled laughter.

This

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon May 07, 2012 3:41 pm

I see the head of the SEC immediately spoke out against semifinal games being played on campus. Can’t have Alabama having to get on a plane to Michigan, after all. How utterly predictable.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon May 07, 2012 4:15 pm

KC Scott wrote:
Sudden Sam wrote:Will they adjust things again when it's Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, and Texas A&M in the 2014 "playoff"?
Preparing for extremely vitriolic responses...
That's one of the fighting points right now - whether it will be the top 4 ranked teams or the winners of the 4 major conferences - whichever those happen to be: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--pot ... start.html

Either the ACC or Big 12 is going to be outside looking in at SEC, B1G & PAC in that scenario

Also the article makes the point this last season would have had the 1, 3, 5 & 10 ranked teams as the final 4

I had heard the latter scenario was pretty much dead.

That would make me, as an ND fan, very happy, in that this won't force us into a conference.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon May 07, 2012 4:18 pm

Van wrote:Mikey, what is it with some people's vitriol towards Reilly? One of the people for whom I edit is an avid sports fan, and he too just cannot stand Reilly.

I don't get it. What's it all about?

I haven't read much of his material for several years, but maybe it's an exaggerated sense of self-worth that seems to come out in every word that writes or utters.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon May 07, 2012 4:38 pm

Mikey wrote:
Van wrote:Mikey, what is it with some people's vitriol towards Reilly? One of the people for whom I edit is an avid sports fan, and he too just cannot stand Reilly.

I don't get it. What's it all about?

I haven't read much of his material for several years, but maybe it's an exaggerated sense of self-worth that seems to come out in every word that writes or utters.

He is weapons grade smarmy.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon May 07, 2012 6:42 pm

So, okay, he's Dins with a larger pulpit?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon May 07, 2012 7:48 pm

And much better writing skills.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon May 07, 2012 8:35 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:And much better ~~writing skills~~ editors.

FTFY

T1B

The Finally Four

The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four

Re: The Finally Four