From: JGibson <>
Subject: Re: I like the 4 team CFP
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id f1mr4353503wmg.11.1514925904944;
Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:45:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id i58mr2220389ote.11.1514925904264;
Tue, 02 Jan 2018 12:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 12:45:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=lUSMzgoAAAD9pSEBNh2hXYPAopRTqF2m
References: <> <>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: I like the 4 team CFP
From: JGibson <>
Injection-Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 20:45:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 3:12:46 PM UTC-5, The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior wrote:
> 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, 

I think the OJUS worked well until they started locking teams into bowls (hi Virginia and the Sugar
Bowl in 1990) ridiculously early.  It also helped that there were independents.