congrats, florida!

[Flames24Rulz]

What about the fact that you are asking 18-22 year olds STUDENTS to play 3 games in addition to the 12 regular season games, and possibly a conference championship game? They'd be playing way into January. If you cut out regular season games, then you lose some of what determines the top 8 teams.

 

Division I-AA teams play 14-15 games. So do Division II and Division III teams. Those students seem to do ok. That excuse is terrible and needs to be put away to rest.

 

They wouldn't be playing well into January. Do the same thing the other divisions do and start the playoffs immediately after the regular season. But yes, those Division I-A athletes have to study and they get too tired from playing in 14-15 games.

[SouthSideRyan]

lol little ten

[apete6]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.)

 

Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

 

Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them.

 

The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths.

 

That's why you just eliminate the concept of naming a National Champ. People can argue about who was the best team of a given year forever. They do anyway and this way there won't be any convoluted BCS or playoff system to muck it up. Every argument can be ended with "I guess we'll never know." What a fun way to pass the time between the last pitch of the world series and spring training.

 

Yet people don't argue hypotheticals about the Super Bowl champ, even when it winds up being the 6 seed as it was 2 years ago with Pittsburgh. That's what a playoff gives you. Sure you can say the Pats and Colts were better that year, but the argument ends with "well they shouldn't have blown it in the playoffs then."

 

Big difference. At least for me anyway.

 

Wow, great quote! I was thinking about a way to justify a playoff if the only undefeated team happens to lose and that was it. =D> =D>