QUOTE(RBear78240 @ Nov 3 2008, 09:57 PM)

So you are making the argument against a playoff system at the end of the season.
I didn't make any reference to inter-conference competition or a D-I playoff system. That can of worms is not relevant to this discussion.
QUOTE
Besides Big 10 teams don't even play all the teams in their conference anyway. So how do you reconcile the true winner of the conference?
I agree, the Big 10/11 does not have a true round-robin structure and they should. Things could have gotten sticky in 06 when Wisconsin didn't have to play Ohio State.
QUOTE
The Pac 10's a different story but who else is there really in the Pac 10 besides a few good teams?
Nice Pac-10 bash, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
QUOTE
Regarding the championship games it's the only way to determine a champion when you have 12 teams in a conference.
Not any more. When the extra game was added a couple years ago, teams easily could have used that slot to add a conference game and move to round-robin.
QUOTE
Oh, and 2005? Wasn't that the year Texas won the National Championship? Oh yea, it was wasn't it.
Good for them. That doesn't mean Colorado was better or more deserving than Texas Tech or Oklahoma.
The fact is that the fairest, most intuitive, most obvious way to determine the best team among a finite group is for each one to play all the others. Conference championship games exist not for the sake of fairness or competition, but for money. I don't know why you are defending them.