<p>"Rogracer, one cannot seriously think that Florida is better than OSU judging from their bowl games."</p>
<p>This is a trick question, right?</p>
<p>So Auburn is better than Florida then? And UCLA is better than USC?</p>
<p>So only zero-loss teams can claim to be true Champions?</p>
<p>I guess what you are saying is even Championship games do not determine who is "best"....even blow-out, totally one-sided ones. But even a playoff series would be subject to that same kind of flaw...you can always point to an earlier loss in the season for most any true Championship team.</p>
<p>This year Florida is a deserving Champion. Are they "better" than OSU? Depends what you mean by "better". If you are making a paper-based hypothetical argument from season-long performance against dissimilar opponents, perhaps not. If you watched what happened on the field, the answer is a clear "yes".</p>
<p>I agree. Did I ever say that Florida wasn't a worthy champion? Clearly, Florida deserves to be the outright NC this year. All I am saying is that on January 8, one team played some of the best football it has played all year while the other team didn't bother showing up. It's not like OSU played its best and just couldn't match Florida. And I think under certain circumstances, LSU, Boise State, USC and Michigan, along with OSU and obviously Florida were all excellent teams. Which is why I think a playoff (with highly standardized season endings etc...) is the only fair way to evaluate which team is indeed the best. Of course, that's what I am saying now. Prior to the Bowl season, I honestly felt OSU and Michigan were the best teams in the land. Clearly, the Bowl games proved me very wrong.</p>
<p>christ, I wrote an entire long paragraph about how a playoff system wouldn't work and the server went down when I tried to post it and it really ticked me off. Basically it said chosing between UMich and Florida is better than chosing between equal teams from 2-15 for the final 2 spots (6 taken by automatic bids).</p>