<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: College Football Playoff in the Works?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/</link>
	<description>Cause, you know, we need more people talking 'bout sports.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 03:58:13 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Friess</title>
		<link>http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/comment-page-1/#comment-3718</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Friess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 20:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/#comment-3718</guid>
		<description>Of course, Bob, Michigan and Nebraska should/would certainly be on any such list.  But my statement included only those 5 schools who were DOWN in 1998 (except maybe Ohio State) and are UP now.

My point was that the 1997-1999 college football landscape was dominated by the largely-regional Florida schools and western schools like Kansas State, Colorado, and Washington State.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, Bob, Michigan and Nebraska should/would certainly be on any such list.  But my statement included only those 5 schools who were DOWN in 1998 (except maybe Ohio State) and are UP now.</p>
<p>My point was that the 1997-1999 college football landscape was dominated by the largely-regional Florida schools and western schools like Kansas State, Colorado, and Washington State.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Vanasse</title>
		<link>http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/comment-page-1/#comment-3700</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Vanasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:48:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/#comment-3700</guid>
		<description>&quot;THE traditional college football powers:  Notre Dame, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, and Ohio State. &quot;

That is a rather highly subjective statement.  In the world according to Mike, I suppose you could limit &quot;THE traditional college football powers&quot; to five, but I can think of a hell of a lot of programs (e.g. Michigan, Nebraska to name two) who could easily be considered &quot;traditional college football powers&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;THE traditional college football powers:  Notre Dame, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, and Ohio State. &#8221;</p>
<p>That is a rather highly subjective statement.  In the world according to Mike, I suppose you could limit &#8220;THE traditional college football powers&#8221; to five, but I can think of a hell of a lot of programs (e.g. Michigan, Nebraska to name two) who could easily be considered &#8220;traditional college football powers&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Vanasse</title>
		<link>http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/comment-page-1/#comment-3699</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Vanasse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 16:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snakesinmypants.com/2007/05/30/college-football-playoff-in-the-works/#comment-3699</guid>
		<description>Interesting article, Mike.  Thanks for posting. Personally, I think a play-off could be added for the top 8 or 16 programs without killing the bowl system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting article, Mike.  Thanks for posting. Personally, I think a play-off could be added for the top 8 or 16 programs without killing the bowl system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
