Yeah, read it the first time. Still doesn't make other factors irrelevant.

Comparing season stats doesn't tell you how players are currently playing. Depending on the time frame considered, the stats aren't too dissimilar. I agree that quality of competition should be considered, but since you recognize that statistics aren't everything, surely you also recognize that studying film is a key component of determining how well a QB is playing. I'd be surprised if this guy actually did a film study, but you can't call that position comical without considering that factor yourself.

*sigh* Despite the clickbait headline and incorrect tweet and comments, his comment was not about which QB is better. "Listen, there's no quarterback in college football playing better than...Trevor Lawrence." He didn't say one was better, he didn't say that one was playing better, he wasn't talking about the full season. He said that, in the undefined 'present,' Lawrence is playing as well as or better than every other QB. I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, but it can be argued and supported.

It never happened, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a chance. Pretty sure that if all the CCG winners had 2+ losses and the loser of the SECCG was 12-1 there would be a good chance that the SECCG loser would play for the national championship.

Guess we know how they're going to get money to pay players without anyone losing what they are currently making.

BCS - max 2/5 conference champs play for the title, as few as 1/5 played CFP - max 4/5 conference champs play for the title (happened 2/5 years), current min of 3/5 conference champs (3/5 years) And yet somehow conference championship games mean less now? So far, the smallest number of conference champions that have played for a national championship in the CFP is still larger than the maximum possible under the BCS. The only reason conference championships mean less despite being more important than ever is that some people keep repeating that unfounded opinion so often that others start to believe it.

I know all the armchair constitutional scholars like to pretend otherwise, but that isn't what the first amendment does. Besides, no one involved prevented an assembly. "Only those who have been on the tyrannical side of history (ie your side), impede the lives of others who are peaceably carrying out their day." This doesn't make sense and is demonstrably false. "...were prevented from carrying out their right to earn a living through the forceful trespassing of the students" Again, what?? This makes no sense. Nor do your bizarrely inaccurate attempts at historical comparisons.

I don't know what a "fellow traveler" is and have never referred to myself as one, but how would I debate or even talk with someone when their responses are incomprehensible? Peaceful doesn't mean unobtrusive. Pretty sure the marches and sit-ins of the civil rights movement were quite disruptive; that alone doesn't make them wrong. The fact that so many people care enough to read, write, and talk about this protest as opposed to what they have probably already been doing on campus indicates that this was indeed an effective way to raise awareness, which is usually an important objective of such demonstrations.

Not sure what you're trying to say

What an incredible display of bliss.

Probably not the best way to accomplish their goals. But I'm not sure why people who refuse to accept science or who advocate violence still consider themselves intellectually or morally superior to peaceful protestors. Guess ignorance and indignation really are bliss.