quote:

Team A plays two games, one in September and one in December.

Team B plays 8 games, 4 each in October and November.

Which one had the “longer” season, “dumbass” (your word, not mine)?

I am not saying it’s better to have fewer games. What I am saying is that IF we are going to end up with the same number of games, and IF the late start is already a “sunk cost”, then having games in December is a nice trade off.

Why is this so hard to understand or contentious for you? You’ve already gotten 5 downvotes on your first reply like this and now you’re doubling down.

Upvote and downvotes don't mean shite.

So you say that the december bowl games aren't good enough, yet here are the games we had early on:

Week 1: Central Arkansas vs UAB. South Alabama vs Southern Miss

Week 2: Oklahoma vs Missouri St. Clemson vs Wake Forest. Texas vs UTEP.

Week 3: Clemson vs Citadel. Notre Dame vs South Florida. Ok St vs Tulsa. Cincy vs Austin Peay

There's your 3 weeks worth of December bowl games. Yeah, none of those games were good, and certainly not better than most all bowl game matchups.

Week 4 is when the SEC started playing games, and also when better games started to happen all around.

And you can try to move the goal posts all you want, but this is the title of this thread: "One good thing about the postponements: longer season"

Which is total bullshite regardless of how many people downvote me for pointing it out.