World champions??

[Prosthetic]

Okay, pure mis-communication and crossed-wires going on now. I'll exit stage left at this point. Maybe someday if and when the NFL, MLB & NBA is hosted around the world, in other countries. There will be a better platform to reflect on.

You know very little about the MLB. The MLB have multiple times hosted in countries around the world and the most recent one is actually of my Giants starting the season off in Taiwan in which case the players wanted to stay where they are. No doubt I wouldn't either... To start a week earlier then any team is stupid but then you have to wait another week to play another game of the series. And most people are happy with what the MLB is now so why make major changes that can possibly slow the sport down. Besides they still do have one remaining Canadian team with talks of a Mexican team sooner or later.

And it's EXACTLY that reasoning and blatant arrogance that leads everyone else on the planet the believe americans are insular xenophobes


As above on the 'America is best' front. Seriously, you guys need to realise that just because you invented something doesn't mean you're the greatest. Henry Ford pretty much invented the car as we know it today (with the model T) and yet American cars nowadays are some of the WORST on sale.

Us Americans are the best at baseball by far and it isn't even close. For every star that's come from another country we produce five stars. And looking back at the past decade that would probably double if you look at all the most recent HoF status players, they are all American. Tell me a place in the world that could assemble a team that would beat American in a series. The US is top of the World in baseball. There is no place in the world that puts as many competitive teams out there as the MLB does.

England can probably lay claim to the origins of Soccer & Cricket, but because it has been widely accepted in many countries, they are no longer the masters of the sport.

Thank you for only reading the last sentence, now I know why you are thinking the way you are.

 

[Famine]

Say, for example, an NFL coach decides to go outside of America and coach an NFL team in Australia/South Africa/China/Brazil/wherever. After a certain amount of coaching his players he has scored from there and many hours of training and plays and so on, he wants to take on the NFL teams.

He can't do that, can he? How would this hypothetical NFL coach get his team to play against the American NFL to see whether his team can compete effectively against the NFL standard teams?

In terms of the NFL itself, probably not immediately no. This is more due to the way NFL is governed politically rather than for sporting reasons. I imagine though that if there was profit to be gained from this overseas franchise, NFL would want a cut.

But, similarly, a Premier League coach can't leave England, coach a football team in Australia/South Africa/China/Brazil/wherever and bring his team back to play against the English Premier League to see whether his team can compete effectively against the Premiership standard teams.


There's nothing stopping a professional American Football league in any other country. There's nothing stopping an inter-nation club competition. So the question is... what's stopping it?

 

[crooky369]

In terms of the NFL itself, probably not immediately no. This is more due to the way NFL is governed politically rather than for sporting reasons. I imagine though that if there was profit to be gained from this overseas franchise, NFL would want a cut.

But, similarly, a Premier League coach can't leave England, coach a football team in Australia/South Africa/China/Brazil/wherever and bring his team back to play against the English Premier League to see whether his team can compete effectively against the Premiership standard teams.


There's nothing stopping a professional American Football league in any other country. There's nothing stopping an inter-nation club competition. So the question is... what's stopping it?

They're afraid of the giant killing! Who thought Greece would win Euro 2004 for example? Or a Spanish third division team beating Real Madrid twice in two years?

So it would be at least nice to see how the NFL team would fare against the inferior opposition because even though it's very likely the NFL team would win it shouldn't be seen as a certainty.

 

[Famine]

It's nothing to do with the American governance of the sport - they have no control over it in any other territory but the USA. There are literally no legal obstacles to a professional American Football league in any other country - so something else must be stopping it.

I doubt it can be the stigma of "4 hours just for 1 hours' worth of play", because we play cricket.

 

[Pyle_PMG]

I agree with Crooky369, the NFL would gladly have an intra-national tournament but it would have to make a lot of revenue to be continued. The giant killing thing is also one reason, for a fact before the merger of the AFL and NFL sometime in the 70's, the Superbowl would consist of the AFL and NFL's best teams. In Superbowl III, the AFL's New York Jets played the NFL's Baltimore Colts. The Jets were major underdogs, QB Joe Namath made a promise that they would win, while the NFL and fans laughed. The AFL was considered an inferior league. So what a shock it was when Johnny Unitas and the Colts lost. That marked the day that proved the NFL champion is in fact not the World Champion and in fact could be beat. The Packers won the Superbowl, and are assumed to be the world champs, which in theory isn't the case but in reality they are the champs.

 

[DKLion3s]

Really? They're ranked 18th in the World and managed a high of 4th in 2006.

In 2002 they were drawn against those bottom feeders Portugal (semi-finalists in Euro 2000, finalists in Euro 2004), South Korea (hosts, semi-finalists that year, 3rd in AFC 2000) and Poland (who beat the US 3-1 in their game). They reached the quarter final and were knocked out by finalists Germany.

In 2006 they were drawn against those bottom feeders Italy (who they beat and who went on to win the World Cup that year), Ghana (3rd in the following African Nations Cup) and Czech Republic (semi-finalists in Euro 2004). They failed to qualify for round 2.

In 2010 they were drawn against those bottom feeders England (ranked 6th in the world at the time), Slovenia (who qualified for the finals by beating Russia, themselves Euro 2008 semi-finalists) and Algeria (fourth in the preceding African Nations Cup). They progressed to round 2 where they were beaten by Ghana (2nd in the preceding African Nations Cup).

Nothing you said is true.

Is that so! Well here is the fact, the final result (score, statistic) of any sport only conveys 15% of what actually happened. Any true sport follower (fan) knows this. The other 85% encompasses all the conditions which lead to the final result, such as skill level, conditions during play, how the game was judged or refereed, financial resources, coach involved, etc.

As I said before, the US is not a good team! And so are many other teams to varying degrees.

If you play against better teams, you get knocked out in the elimination rounds. If you don't, you progress. So either they get knocked out playing against better teams or you progress playing against "bottom feeders". They can't both be true - you've contradicted yourself.

No I've not. When the US is paired against bottom feeders during qualifying, it only makes them seem better than they are. They don't get knocked out if they lose, due to the percentage of teams qualifying. In otherwards they can advance from another team losing, and they (US) didn't even play a game.

I still have no idea what you mean by "inclusive" and "exclusive", nor why it's even relevant to the fact that the best team at the highest level of a given sport in the world can call itself "World Champion" of that sport. Can Spain not call themselves World Champion because they haven't beaten Inverness Caledonian Thistle? Can Internazionale not call themselves World Champion because they haven't beaten Martinique?

I mean exactly what Oxford & Webster define "inclusive" & "exclusive" as nothing added nor inferred.

Fact is, whatever your nationality, you can play American Football at the highest level (thus it includes all nationalities). Since no other country plays the sport at this level yet, you have to play it in America and an international tournament would be without any kind of merit. And if you win at the highest level in the world, are you not champion of the world?

Yes, every nationality is openly accepted into the league, however it's still based on individualism, not from a team standpoint. And even then, the majority of nationalities are not represented in the NFL.

Thank you for only reading the last sentence, now I know why you are thinking the way you are.

Don't feel left out, I read every word. However if it is a duplicate of what someone else contributed or something I already have knowledge of, I tend to move on. I apologize if it felt like I dismissed what you posted.

Yes, the MLB has on the rare occassions hosted games elsewhere, it is a penny in the ocean compared to other international sports, miniscule in scale.
So has the NFL & NBA been limited to a few select countries. In otherwards they're not widespread.

 

[Famine]

Is that so! Well here is the fact, the final result (score, statistic) of any sport only conveys 15% of what actually happened. Any true sport follower (fan) knows this. The other 85% encompasses all the conditions which lead to the final result, such as skill level, conditions during play, how the game was judged or refereed, financial resources, coach involved, etc.

As I said before, the US is not a good team! And so are many other teams to varying degrees.

I watched them beating Italy. I watched them draw with England. They didn't seem to be misplaced in either game.

You should be a little more careful throwing "facts" about. Last I checked, the World Cup is decided on the final result and no other factors. The world champions are Spain, because they won the Final and not Netherlands because they did not.

I mean exactly what Oxford & Webster define "inclusive" & "exclusive" as nothing added nor inferred.

Yes, but they make no sense when applied to this discussion.

And it's "implied", not inferred. Reader infers, writer implies.

Yes, every nationality is openly accepted into the league, however it's still based on individualism, not from a team standpoint. And even then, the majority of nationalities are not represented in the NFL.

But it has nothing to do with the notion that the team that wins the highest level of competition in the sport in the world can call themselves world champions of that sport.

There's nothing stopping any other country from having their own league and sinking money and talent into it to compete with the Americans. The fact that they don't have anyone to compete with them isn't their fault - it's ours. You shouldn't denigrate the achievements of their teams because they're awesome at a sport we can't be bothered to try to compete with them in.

 

[DKLion3s]

I watched them beating Italy. I watched them draw with England. They didn't seem to be misplaced in either game.

The only reason they even got to play England was because another team in the group lost their match. I watched it too. It was shear luck they won against Italy, not skill.

Yes, but they make no sense when applied to this discussion.

And it's "implied", not inferred. Reader infers, writer implies.

Thanks for the correction, I was more focused on the discussion at hand. Those two words are very much applicable to this discussion when we're referrencing "world" and the "countries/nationalities" thereof.

But it has nothing to do with the notion that the team that wins the highest level of competition in the sport in the world can call themselves world champions of that sport.

Are we referrencing the same country, that, only within the last 100 yrs has allowed even certain races to be involved in their sporting events period? I would beg to differ that they can call themselves world champions.

That's another issue all together.

There's nothing stopping any other country from having their own league and sinking money and talent into it to compete with the Americans. The fact that they don't have anyone to compete with them isn't their fault - it's ours. You shouldn't denigrate the achievements of their teams because they're awesome at a sport we can't be bothered to try to compete with them in.

Referrence above statement. I would beg to differ that the US was open to all nationalities to enter into their private party of yure. That's the reason they (football, baseball, basketball) have not quite proliferated as well as other established international sports.


Edit: In closure I'll say this. The rest of the world will never view them as world champions, given the very heavily biased (US) sampling of talent.

 

[Northstar]

Just wondering. Is there any competition where all 195 countries(I think that's how many there are) compete in a given sport and are involved in the same tournament?

 

[DKLion3s]

Just wondering. Is there any competition where all 195 countries(I think that's how many there are) compete in a given sport and are involved in the same tournament?

You could probably get really close in track & field.

Edit: Unless you're referring to just team sports?

 

[Northstar]

You could probably get really close in track & field.

Edit: Unless you're referring to just team sports?

Team Sports.

 

[DKLion3s]

Team Sports.

Not even close to the figure you mentioned, due to the fact 75% of countries are still considerred third world. Some don't even register on the radar.

 

[Northstar]

Not even close to the figure you mentioned, due to the fact 75% of countries are still considerred third world. Some don't even register on the radar.

Than "World Champion" is just a myth.

 

[DKLion3s]

Than "World Champion" is just a myth.

In a way, yes. It's based on the percentage of the overall. For instance, if 80% of the countries in the world participate, then that's considerred a good strong indicator that you've found a world champion team.

 

[Famine]

The only reason they even got to play England was because another team in the group lost their match. I watched it too. It was shear luck they won against Italy, not skill.

But they won, did they not? And the results are what determines who is crowned World Champion. There's no prize for playing well and losing.

Thanks for the correction, I was more focused on the discussion at hand. Those two words are very much applicable to this discussion when we're referrencing "world" and the "countries/nationalities" thereof.

They aren't in any manner you've suggested.

No-one is excluded from playing American Football. Meadowbank Thistle aren't included in the FIFA World Cup. Are we to suggest (or infer) association football is exclusional and American football is inclusional from that? Of course not.

Are we referrencing the same country, that, only within the last 100 yrs has allowed even certain races to be involved in their sporting events period? I would beg to differ that they can call themselves world champions.

That's another issue all together.

Are you seriously suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves world champions for winning the highest level of competition in their sport because they allowed slavery in the past?

I'm surprised this wouldn't make you explode. Spain, France and Italy have all won the FIFA World Cup in the last four tournaments but didn't bother to give women the vote until 1931, 1944 and 1946 respectively - with the US beating them all to it by doing so in 1920. Oh, remember Greece who won Euro 2004? They didn't get round to it until 1952! Shall we bring up Germany, who've won the FIFA World Cup, in various guises, on three occasions (finalist on four others) since a brief spat during which their state imprisoned and executed the disabled?

Champions none. Apparently.

Referrence above statement. I would beg to differ that the US was open to all nationalities to enter into their private party of yure. That's the reason they (football, baseball, basketball) have not quite proliferated as well as other established international sports.

Edit: In closure I'll say this. The rest of the world will never view them as world champions, given the very heavily biased (US) sampling of talent.

I hear the Spanish world cup winning side was full of people born in Spain. Whatever next?


I'm in the rest of the world. I consider a team that wins the highest possible level of their sport to be the world champions at that sport. The lack of viable alternatives in other countries isn't the fault of the US, it's the fault of other countries' unwillingness to partake of that sport.

 

[Omnis]

Just wondering. Is there any competition where all 195 countries(I think that's how many there are) compete in a given sport and are involved in the same tournament?

See, this doesn't matter one bit. All sports are open to players from all over the world. Even Sumo, the most regiospecific (Wow, that's my Chemistry major coming out) "closed" sport in the world, has sekitori from foreign countries.

If we look at things through the eyes of hard science, we can say that a foreign, scrub football team beating an NFL team is impossible. Why? Because if it were possible, it would have happened.

 

[DKLion3s]

But they won, did they not? And the results are what determines who is crowned World Champion. There's no prize for playing well and losing.



They aren't in any manner you've suggested.

No-one is excluded from playing American Football. Meadowbank Thistle aren't included in the FIFA World Cup. Are we to suggest (or infer) association football is exclusional and American football is inclusional from that? Of course not.



Are you seriously suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves world champions for winning the highest level of competition in their sport because they allowed slavery in the past?

I'm surprised this wouldn't make you explode. Spain, France and Italy have all won the FIFA World Cup in the last four tournaments but didn't bother to give women the vote until 1931, 1944 and 1946 respectively - with the US beating them all to it by doing so in 1920. Oh, remember Greece who won Euro 2004? They didn't get round to it until 1952! Shall we bring up Germany, who've won the FIFA World Cup, in various guises, on three occasions (finalist on four others) since a brief spat during which their state imprisoned and executed the disabled?

Champions none. Apparently.



I hear the Spanish world cup winning side was full of people born in Spain. Whatever next?


I'm in the rest of the world. I consider a team that wins the highest possible level of their sport to be the world champions at that sport. The lack of viable alternatives in other countries isn't the fault of the US, it's the fault of other countries' unwillingness to partake of that sport.

The intended understanding is not being conveyed on my part very well. Let's just say this, all the pointers you mentioned with regards to other teams during the history of the world cup, their respective winnings during said time periods did not exclude any country from the tournament. That's all I'm trying to say.

I've literally set foot on every continent of mother earth, and when the subject of sports come up, only US sports are defined as such "US Football, US Baseball, US Basketball". All other sports are then titled by their respective title, plain football, rugby, crockett, tabletennis, tennis, golf, polo, waterpolo, badminton, so forth and so on.

 

[Famine]

The intended understanding is not being conveyed on my part very well. Let's just say this, all the pointers you mentioned with regards to other teams during the history of the world cup, their respective winnings during said time periods did not exclude any country from the tournament. That's all I'm trying to say.

Oh really?

Several teams have been excluded from the World Cup Finals. The two that spring most readily to mind are Spain, who were excluded from the 1958 World Cup Finals and Chile, who were excluded from the 1990 & 1994 World Cup Finals.

The Cricket World Cup excludes anyone except the ten Test-playing nations and six selected other nations from a total pool of 80 nations. That's less than a third of the planet. World Champions or not?

I've literally set foot on every continent of mother earth, and when the subject of sports come up, only US sports are defined as such "US Football, US Baseball, US Basketball". All other sports are then titled by their respective title, plain football, rugby, crockett, tabletennis, tennis, golf, polo, waterpolo, badminton, so forth and so on.

I've never heard anything other than American Football prefixed with American. But then you've missed out Australian Rules Football there too.

But so what? That's all to do with naming conventions. Are the world champions of my preferred sport - hockey - less world champions because some other nations call my sport "field hockey" and their own sport "hockey" (which I'd call "ice hockey")? Or are the names not relevant?

You've still not explained why the team (or individual) that wins the absolute highest level tournament it's possible to play in their sport cannot be called World Champions of that sport.

 

[DKLion3s]

Oh really?

Several teams have been excluded from the World Cup Finals. The two that spring most readily to mind are Spain, who were excluded from the 1958 World Cup Finals and Chile, who were excluded from the 1990 & 1994 World Cup Finals.

The Cricket World Cup excludes anyone except the ten Test-playing nations and six selected other nations from a total pool of 80 nations. That's less than a third of the planet. World Champions or not?



I've never heard anything other than American Football prefixed with American. But then you've missed out Australian Rules Football there too.

But so what? That's all to do with naming conventions. Are the world champions of my preferred sport - hockey - less world champions because some other nations call my sport "field hockey" and their own sport "hockey" (which I'd call "ice hockey")? Or are the names not relevant?

You've still not explained why the team (or individual) that wins the absolute highest level tournament it's possible to play in their sport cannot be called World Champions of that sport.

That answer has been stated, in not so specific terms, very early on in this thread, but let's summarize it.

Any sporting event that is held with a minute sampling from the total amount of countries in the world, should not by definition "World", seriously consider themselves "World Champions". And that goes for any sport. Final answer.


Do I get a prize? You do have an answer from me now. lol

 

[Famine]

The sporting event is held with a total sampling of all the professional teams in the world. All of them. In the world. It is the single, highest level event in that sport in the world. There's no others that come close. In the world.

So why can the best team in that sport in the world not call themselves world champions of that sport?

 

[DKLion3s]

The sporting event is held with a total sampling of all the professional teams in the world. All of them. In the world. It is the single, highest level event in that sport in the world. There's no others that come close. In the world.

So why can the best team in that sport in the world not call themselves world champions of that sport?

NFL = National Football League
NBA = National Basketball League
MLB = Major League Baseball

None of which point to "World" , and are totally exclusive to individual players of the hosting country, meaning if they aren't in the country they don't get to participate, regardless of their nationality.


*Oh man, I've been doing this for a while now.* Is there a prize for this? lol

 

[Famine]

You're still evading the fundamental, underlying principle. There is no higher level of competition in that sport in the world. That is the highest level of competition in that sport in the world. Thus the champions of it may quite rightly call themselves champions of (the highest level of competition in that sport in) the world.

 

[DKLion3s]

You're still evading the fundamental, underlying principle. There is no higher level of competition in that sport in the world. That is the highest level of competition in that sport in the world. Thus the champions of it may quite rightly call themselves champions of (the highest level of competition in that sport in) the world.

No evassion here. It's just that this platform is not widely spread through other nations for a less biased event to take place.

 

[Omnis]

NFL = National Football League
NBA = National Basketball League
MLB = Major League Baseball

None of which point to "World" , and are totally exclusive to individual players of the hosting country, meaning if they aren't in the country they don't get to participate, regardless of their nationality.


*Oh man, I've been doing this for a while now.* Is there a prize for this? lol

Yeah, it's called the Darwin Award. Although our prize is not one literally, so don't be offended.

NFL: Buffalo plays in Toronto sometimes.
NBA: Toronto Raptors would like a word.
MLB: Montreal Expos, Toronto Blue Jays, Vancouver Canadians

And by the same logic, the NHL must be an America-only sport too, right? Edmonton Oilers, Toronto Leafs, Ottowa Senators, Calgary Flames, Vancouver Canucks, Montreal Canadiens, Saskatchewan Mooseteeth.

No evassion here. It's just that this platform is not widely spread through other nations for a less biased event to take place.

You're deluding yourself into thinking that it is biased because people would rather play light-contact soccer in most of the world instead of full-contact football. That's not bias, that's a product of choice. If people want to play football and are good at it, they come play in the US. If Americans want to play soccer and are good at it, they try to go play in Europe. Fanbase geography has absolutely NOTHING to do with the talent pool. The international makeup of a talent pool makes for a sport whose champion can thereby be considered a champion of the world. Come back to reality and stop wasting your time dreaming of some hidden superteam that it too busy guarding a wicket and practicing set-pieces.

 

[DKLion3s]

No one is filing suit against the title. Just the majority don't see, view or accept it, as a legitimate "World Champions Title" event.

 

[Famine]

No evassion here. It's just that this platform is not widely spread through other nations for a less biased event to take place.

And it's not the fault of the Americans that this is the case, but the fault of everyone else.

If you want to see it widely spread through other nations, spread it. They can only beat what is put in front of them to beat. If we offer up nothing, we cannot have any complaint.

No one is filing suit against the title. Just the majority don't see, view or accept it, as a legitimate "World Champions Title" event.

Then give the world champions some competition. Until then, don't complain when they beat everyone else at the highest level of their sport and believe themselves to be the best in the world at it - because they most certainly are.

 

[DKLion3s]

And it's not the fault of the Americans that this is the case, but the fault of everyone else.

If you want to see it widely spread through other nations, spread it. They can only beat what is put in front of them to beat. If we offer up nothing, we cannot have any complaint.



Then give the world champions some competition. Until then, don't complain when they beat everyone else at the highest level of their sport and believe themselves to be the best in the world at it - because they most certainly are.

Who's complaining? What do you think, that has driven me to discuss this for so long? It's a discussion of viewpoints.

It's just a viewpoint submitted for the topic of discussion. I've read all views, and have put forth mine and experiences from social interactions. Not a single complaint here. If they want to call themselves King of the Universe, then, so be it. My view would still remain as defined above for the sake of this discussion.


Edit: Just a side note. If you take a look at the Superbowl XLV thread, you will also notice I was willingly a part of celebratory & supportively active side for the opposition, to the views I posted in this thread. In otherwards an active participant of this so called hypocracy. LOL

 

[Barra333]

Almost every sport ever invented and played at a professional level is played at a professional level in multiple countries - largely because we invented them and made all of our colonies play them. There isn't really an analogy for American Football except maybe Australian Rules (and their Grand Final winners call themselves "World Footy Champions"...)

I've never heard the winners of the AFL premiership call themselves world champions, but by the logic of the NFL, MLB etc they would be quite within their right to do so.

I have always had a problem with the MLB 'World' Series. Unlike the NFL and AFL, there are other pro baseball leagues that have a high standard. If the SF Giants went to say, Japan and beat the league winners there, I would be more satisfied with the title world champion. As it is, the title world champion is an assumption. The MLB winner would most likely be the best, but it should not be assumed.

Just wondering. Is there any competition where all 195 countries(I think that's how many there are) compete in a given sport and are involved in the same tournament?

The FIFA world cup is open to all countries. The bit we watch on TV every 4 years is merely the final stages of it. Look at the FIFA website and check out all of the preliminary games that are played - every single country gets a chance - they just get weeded down to 32 for the finals. Here is the page for the 2006 prelim stages for reference (couldn't find the 2010 one straight away).

 

[spiker]

The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League team.

There are other professional American football leagues, but all of them are composed of guys who couldn't cut it in the NFL.

CFL (Canadian)
UFL
Arena Football (There have been various leagues, most have ended)
XFL (Closed after 1 season)
NFL Europe (Closed, Feeder league for real NFL)

None of the teams from any of these leagues could compete with the worst NFL team. There might be some college teams that would thrash Canadien League teams. That's not opinion, that's a fact. How do I know it's a fact? Because any player in any of those leagues was not good enough to compete in the NFL, that's why they were in those leagues. So who else is stepping up to claim this World Championship from an NFL team? No one worth recognizing, that's who. Like Famine has stated, they are the de facto World Champions.

Also, baseball does do an International tournament every few years called the World Baseball Classic. Japan won the last (which were actually the first) two WBC titles. The problem with this tournament is that it is held during the same time as MLB Spring Training and much of the World's top talent does not participate because they are with their MLB clubs.

And furthermore, why the hell does anybody care if the NFL crowns someone a "World Champion"? I'm not sitting over here getting butt hurt that some team is crowned as world champions in polo or lacrosse or whatever else. Who cares?

 

[Joel]

The Vancouver Canadians are a Minor League team.

There are other professional American football leagues, but all of them are composed of guys who couldn't cut it in the NFL.

CFL (Canadian)
UFL
Arena Football (There have been various leagues, most have ended)
XFL (Closed after 1 season)
NFL Europe (Closed, Feeder league for real NFL)

None of the teams from any of these leagues could compete with the worst NFL team. There might be some college teams that would thrash Canadien League teams. That's not opinion, that's a fact. How do I know it's a fact? Because any player in any of those leagues was not good enough to compete in the NFL, that's why they were in those leagues. So who else is stepping up to claim this World Championship from an NFL team? No one worth recognizing, that's who. Like Famine has stated, they are the de facto World Champions.

Also, baseball does do an International tournament every few years called the World Baseball Classic. Japan won the last (which were actually the first) two WBC titles. The problem with this tournament is that it is held during the same time as MLB Spring Training and much of the World's top talent does not participate because they are with their MLB clubs.

And furthermore, why the hell does anybody care if the NFL crowns someone a "World Champion"? I'm not sitting over here getting butt hurt that some team is crowned as world champions in polo or lacrosse or whatever else. Who cares?

I'm not sure if college teams would thrash CFL teams, they'd put up a good fight but most of the CFL players are former college players themselves, and they of course have been playing pro football for years after. I'm sure college teams would come away with the win probably 4 out of 10 times, but I don't think they'd steamroll.