The Final Four

Some discussion if having no #1 or #2 seeds dilutes the Final Four. Of course it does. But that's a product of no great teams this year.

Some BCS proponents claim this as a victory for College Football's system. After all, we don't have #1 playing #2. Nevermind the fact such things are arbitrary, mind you. Was Auburn and Oregon the two best teams in college football for sure this past season? Beats me. The Packers were a 6 seed, so tournaments sometimes lead to the hottest team winning but it takes a good regular season to get in. Some say that makes the regular season irrelevant but I'd much rather have an opportunity than polls and a computer decide who will play for it all. Sure, RPI & SOS are realities in deciding the field but it MAKES the regular season relevant. What's the bonus for playing a tough schedule in college football? Your SOS might be weak but why risk losing when one loss kills you in the eyes of the human? The NFL manages to be relevant. The Packers sweated out until week 17 to get in. How would college football's season end if more teams had a chance to win it all? The days of great non-conference action is OVER. Why take on Oklahoma when you can get a W against Roast Beef Tech? Give me the early season tournaments and the yearly conference challenges of college basketball.

Does this Final Four run the risk of being 2006 ugly? Possibly. And if that's the case, so be it. For three weeks, college basketball has ruled the airways and made casual sports fans care for more than one mere game. And that's why we love March Madness and wish we could have it every Saturday on December, too.