For about 10 solid days, I genuinely became interested in the Bertone designed Ferrari 308 GT4. Mind you it’s not the prettiest Ferrari that ever graced Maranello. Heck, it didn’t even bear the Ferrari name for several years until dealers decided to stick them on (around 1976) to help move the cars.
The early 308 performed exceptionally well for its time. I won’t describe any reviews here as I’m sure there are better write-ups somewhere on the internet. However, even it took 72 hours before I found any appreciation for its looks.
I like Bertone. I like the school of Bertone. I own a Delorean - designed by Giugiaro, who developed his style from Bertone. You can tell from the 308 GT4 that it followed the “folded paper” school of art… Delorean…. Lamborghini Countach… Esprit… Aston Martin Lagonda… you get the picture. But even though I had an appreciation for the wedge look, it didn’t sit right on a Ferrari.
Needless to say, I snapped out of my 10 day liking of the 308 GT4. I also realized that Ferrari’s experiments away from Pininfarina’s designs were necessary. They were necessary because we all need to be reminded of how beautiful the 246GT and the 308 GTS/GTB are (and everything else after, of course).
However, like an unwanted puppy from a litter of pure-bred dogs, the 308 GT4 did gain my sympathy. It’s like the red-headed cousin that nobody wanted to play it - and you felt bad for it. The 308 came out during the 70s oil crisis, probably the worst time to make cars. Tack on the emissions restrictions and you’ve got a choked expensive car. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Ferrari released a 208 GT4 (a 1994cc engine POS) - yikes!!!. And right next to it in the same showroom floor is the sexy 308 GTB/GTS (later on the 512 BB). Had it not been born a Ferrari, it may have been a contender.
In 2009, the 308 GT4 is just an “also-ran” - no surprise. It doesn’t even have notoriety (at least the Ferrari Mondial is hated by many - some emotion is better than none). Depending on condition, I would value this car from $10k to $27k (if the condition makes it less than $10k, you probably don’t want it). You have a 30+ year old car that requires a high-caliber paint job, some interior work, mechanicals - that could run from $10k to $20k. And if the most you’ll get back is $27k, then it better be a labor of love for you.
It would never gain more in value than it’s sibling 308s hovering at about 30k (unless it has a celebrity history and in impeccable original shape). However, if the 308 GT4 does bring about some childhood dreams, then it’s always worth a look because, hey, it’s a Ferrari after all.
Did I hear this correctly during bowl week? Were announcers actually discussing the idea of adding one more game at the end of the BCS to determine a National Champion? Are people really this stupid?????? What makes them think that one more game would do anything to make less controversial an inherently controversial system? This year is the perfect example as to just how dumb an idea of adding one more game would be. Regardless of which team wins the “National Championship” game between Florida and Oklahoma, who would they play next? USC? Utah? What if Texas whipped up on Ohio St.? Wouldn’t they be deserving of a chance? And if at the same time, Oklahoma managed to upset Florida, would that mean Texas would have to beat Oklahoma for a second time to be crowned champion? It’s ridiculous. It’s still subjective and anytime you have a subjective determination there will be disagreement.
If it is so important to fairly determine a National Champion (can you name the last 10 … no make that 5 National Champions in Men’s basketball without looking it up? No? I guess maybe it’s not as important as everyone makes it out to be.) the only system that would work would be a non-subjective playoff system.
My proposal for a playoff system would clear things up and not extend the season and would not spoil the tradition and pageantry of the bowl games. You take 8 conference champions and put them in a playoff that runs on the same weekends that the other college football divisions are conducting their playoff and when FBS is taking a powder. Four games the first weekend, two the second. The results of the 6 games determine which bowls those 8 teams play in. Obviously, the two teams that won both of their games play for the National Championship in one of the traditional New Year’s Day bowls. (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, etc. which could be done on a rotating basis)
Admittedly, there would be a small bit of ambiguity when determining which 8 conference champions advance to the playoffs but football does not have the luxury of being able to add games ad nauseum like basketball. (This system tacks on 1 game to the schedule of 4 teams, and 2 games for 4 teams. A little excessive, but doable.)Taking this season as an example, I think it would be fairly clear that besides the BCS conference champs, Boise St. and Utah would deserve to take the other 2 slots. Also, to reduce the ambiguity, any thoughts of “wild cards” or “at large” picks should be eliminated. Not only does it open up more controversy, it’s not necessary. Those who think that a teams such as Alabama or Ohio St. are more deserving to be in the playoff than Boise St. have things all mixed up. For one, neither Ohio St. nor Alabama was good enough to win their own conference so why would they subsequently be entitled to a second chance at the whole enchilada. Also, if Boise St. is not good enough to compete with the other schools, the playoff will most certainly determine this.
The one problem that my proposed system would not solve would be the entire Texas Tech, Texas and Oklahoma debacle. There isn’t a clear solution to determine which team is the most deserving but that would be a problem for the Big 12 conference to solve. Which ever team they determine to be their champion, is the team that would advance to the playoff. A benefit of only taking conference champions which may not be readily apparent to everyone would be that it would all but eliminate the importance of the “rankings.” Teams earn their right to advance to the playoffs by what they do on the field, not in the polls. And once you eliminate the effect of the polls, perhaps schools would no longer be hesitant to put some meat in their non-conference schedules and it would eliminate the need for power houses to schedule cream puffs. We might actually see more Big 12 v. SEC matchups in the regular season. That would be cool.
This should satisfy everyone. Those who are screaming for a playoff should be satisfied. Those who want to keep the tradition of the bowls should be satisfied. I personally like the bowls. They are great for the communities, schools, players, boosters, parents, etc. By putting the playoffs in front of the bowls, none of those good times are eliminated. This would be so easy to implement. Why isn’t it being done? I guess I’ve answered my own question. People really are that stupid.