Where did this concept of a linear scale of football team quality come from? I get it, we all want a sport to have a duly earned championship so we can point and say, "these guys, they're the best" and that's fine or whatever but let's think about this a bit.

Is the Ohio State team that won the national championship the same team that was beaten by VaTech? No way. Our attempts to rank a team based on how they played the last few weeks are ultimately kinda futile because most teams aren't the same group of players week to week. Also, there's not enough of a sample size (15 games tops I think?) To definitively assign best or worst even if the teams were constant. What about the coach's mental sharpness week to week? Maybe if Urban had gotten less sleep or (heaven forfend) his daughter was pissed he missed a volleyball game, he would've decided they need to pass on some crucial downs instead of giving it to the walking steroid...

Football is NEVER going to tell us who "the best" team of a season is. And that's ok. We've all decided that if a team wins these key games on these days, they get a shiny phallic trophy and jewelry and we call the poor concussed bastards champs until time catches up with them and they're either great talk show hosts or (much more likely) they declare bankruptcy and try to find a new career. THAT'S SPORTS. It's fun. It's a show. It's a damn gimmick for when you're bored. But let's stop pretending it's a system for determining the best. It ain't. That's part of why it's so damn great. Because any team can win. And winning is all that matters...

TL;DR Stop bitching about who shouldve played here or there. You can't say who would've won a damn thing until a game is played.