From: The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior <>
Subject: Re: I like the 4 team CFP
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id s188mr28535870ios.107.1514923965283;
Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:12:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id y41mr2216516oti.5.1514923965215;
Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:12:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:12:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Le5dZgoAAABd6rCXyeArNxw5XqzfoFCo
References: <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: I like the 4 team CFP
From: "The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior" <>
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 20:12:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1749695048
X-Received-Bytes: 2507
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 12:35:53 PM UTC-6, JGibson wrote:
> Maybe I'm in the minority, but the way I see it, it allows enough teams in to get all the teams
that actually have arguments for #1 while also being small enough to keep the regular season really
> Yes, the team now favored to win is the only one of the 4 in not to have a legitimate argument for
#1 as we headed to the CFP.  But it's a flawed team with 1 single loss - the same # the other three
teams had.
> It also still allows the bowl system to exist and for those of us in cold climates to make trips
to California, Arizona, Florida, or Texas if we want to and center those trips around football.

4 is the optimal number for me if we're going to insist on a playoof.  Personally, I'm still a fan
of the OJUS, but since we've got it, I'd like to stay where we are.  Every time we add a round of
teams, we just open the window for whining about non-inclusion all the wider - there are at least 7
or 8 teams with a reasonable case for slots 5-8 - if we did something stupid like go to 16, there'd
prolly be 20 or saying "what about us??????" for the last couple of slots.