College Football

[© tweed]

Players shouldn't be forced to play College ball to qualify for the NFL.

they're not.  you're thinking of the age/3 yrs since HS graduation restriction

This is de facto forcing people to play in college, and make the universities tons of money and see none of it for themselves because "that's not what it's about".

The fact remains that if you don't play college ball you for all intents and purposes can't play in the NFL. Don't try to handwave it with semantics.

I'm not defending the age restriction dude.  it'd be considered an unlawful restraint of trade in any other industry, and exists but for the NFL's partial antitrust exemption.

the NBA has an age restriction too, and what a few players have done is play overseas (China, Europe) for one season rather than play college basketball.  if the NFL/NBA tried to make a rule that forced prospective employees to participate in the NCAA it'd definitely be struck down by any court.

[DemPGH]

Well, this was one of the arguments against a playoff - wherever the cutoff is ( if it's 4, 6, or 8 ), what differentiates the 8th best team from the 9th best team or the 6th best team from the 7th best team? These rankings are literally the most subjective splitting of hairs that there can be. I remember when everyone used to scream, "The computer favors this program over that one." Who knows.

I think it should be at least 6 teams that get in, and give the 1 and 2 a bye. Or, as Harry suggests, go with 8. Beyond 8 I don't think you can make a case that you should be in a championship tournament. That's the answer, IMO.

[7,052,770]

Well, this was one of the arguments against a playoff - wherever the cutoff is ( if it's 4, 6, or 8 ), what differentiates the 8th best team from the 9th best team or the 6th best team from the 7th best team? These rankings are literally the most subjective splitting of hairs that there can be. I remember when everyone used to scream, "The computer favors this program over that one." Who knows.

I think it should be at least 6 teams that get in, and give the 1 and 2 a bye. Or, as Harry suggests, go with 8. Beyond 8 I don't think you can make a case that you should be in a championship tournament. That's the answer, IMO.

I agree that there's going to be an argument no matter what, but with a lower cutoff, no one is going to feel sorry for whoever is left out. This year, the last spot would either go to Mississippi State or Michigan State. It would probably be Mississippi State, and Michigan State fans would be really upset. But no one outside of East Lansing would feel that bad for them, because they haven't beaten any ranked teams and lost to the only 2 good teams they played. There would be nowhere near the outrage that there is for Baylor and TCU right now.

There wasn't a national champion, there were many. I think every team that feels like it deserves it should claim a national championship, because I don't care and the fact that people do care is ruining football.

Yeah, sometimes, but it's not like there was a split championship every year or anything. And most years it was obvious to most people who was the "real" champion who was the pretender that just got one obscure poll to vote them in.

People have cared who the national champion is for nearly 100 years. Now everyone gets to agree instead of fight. Now the best team gets to prove it, instead of a cabal of morons picking the most pre$tigious team with a good record. It's progress.

Do you also wish the conferences didn't keep standings? Do people caring who the best SEC/Big 10/whatever team is also ruin football? Do you just enjoy the individual games from week to week and that's it?