This is a tough question to answer. What is to say that the two teams which I have though were the two best teams in the nation all year long don't deserve the chance to face off again, almost two months from now? Yet, something gnaws at me to say that should be the case.

You had your shot. You didn't win. Why should you get a second chance?

This isn't the NCAA Basketball tournament, where teams might run into each other again, after 30 game seasons, after playing many other opponents. This is college football, where we don't like rematches from the regular season.

The last time we had a "rematch" for the National Championship was 1996. In the final game of the regular season, #1 Florida lost at #2 Florida State, 24-21. The Gators went on to win the SEC championship game against Alabama and move to #3 in the final poll before the bowl games. They were matched by the Bowl Alliance (the direct ancestor of the BCS) against Florida State in the Sugar Bowl.

On January 2nd, 1997, Florida got its revenge, 52-20, and took the National Championship.

It leaves a little bit of bad taste in your mouth, doesn't it? You weren't able to take care of business during the regular season, yet with a month to prepare, you were able to blow out the other team.

I don't want that for my National Championship.

No matter who wins, I don't want the loser to come back almost two months later and totally destroy the other team.

Here are three reasons why I don't want to see a rematch in the National Championship Game (Sponsored by Tostitos. Pass the Salsa):

1. It goes against tradition - If you go all the way back in the history of the bowl games, to the grandaddy of them all, the Rose Bowl, the whole point of the bowls was to put on a show that would attract tourists from the cold parts of the country to the warm parts. The Rose Bowl's grand idea for this was to put a team from the West against one from another part of the country, inviting those fans to travel to Los Angeles to experience the weather.

So why should we put two teams from the same conference into the title game and go against tradition? If anything, the team with the biggest argument in reason #1 is USC. Despite losing to Oregon State, they have taken care of every other opponent on their schedule, including the possible winners of the SEC (Arkansas) and Big XII (Nebraska) conferences, largely regarded as the two best conferences other than the Big Ten and Pac-10. So USC, should they win out against Cal, UCLA, and Notre Dame, deserves their shot to face the Big Ten winner.

And if you want tradition, there is nothing better than Pac-10 vs. Big Ten, the Rose Bowl formula from 1946-2001.

2. What if the other team wins the second time around? - It happened in 1996. Despite the pollsters giving Florida the title for the 1996 season, Florida and Florida State split the two games. Yes, Florida won by a bigger margin in the rematch on a neutral field, but the truth is, the two teams split the series. Where is the rubbber game? Who is really the best team in a series between the two?

With two games you can't tell. You have to let the one game stand as written and move on from there. We don't get the chance to have a three game series, or more like in other sports.

In college football, you get one chance. It might be harsh, especially considering that most of those playing the game are between 18 and 22 years old, but that is the way it goes.

3. Conference Champions should be the only ones to play for the National Championship - Jim Tressel, on the verge of the biggest game of his season was asked the question.

REPORTER: Just following up, do you think to play in the National Championship game a team should have to win their conference?

COACH TRESSEL: Yeah.

I may not agree with Tressel much, but here I do.

Let's be honest. The last couple of times when teams who didn't win their conference played for the championship, everyone complained.

The last of these was 2003, when Oklahoma lost to Kansas State in the Big XII championship, yet still finished at the top of the BCS standings, somewhat thanks to a high computer score. The Sooners went on to lose to LSU in the Sugar Bowl and give us the only split champion since the BCS took form.

The most controversial game of the BCS-era, where a non-conference champion played for the title happened in the 2001 season. That year, Nebraska at 11-0 was #2 in the country on November 18th. The next week, they lost to Colorado to lose the Big XII North Title. The loss dropped them to sixth in the polls. Colorado went on to win the Big XII championship, defeating Texas.

Nebraska moved up in the polls thanks to the loss by Texas, a loss by Florida to Tennessee, and a loss by Tennessee in the SEC championship. They finished fourth in both polls used in the BCS formula at the time, but managed to sneak into the Rose Bowl as the #2 team in the formula overall.

Miami easily beat them 37-14.

Based on this history, we have seen what happens when non-conference winners play for the title. They lose. I don't know if we want history to repeat itself for a third time, especially when it also involves a rivalry this big.

Let's give another team a shot at the winner. There are enough deserving teams in other conferences that it seems worthwhile. A Florida, Arkansas, USC, West Virginia, or even Rutgers, deserve their shot at the winner of this game, provided they win out.

I think even Bo and Woody could agree to that.

Ben Miraski writes for MRISports.com and is a featured blogger on FanIQ. Readers can contact Ben at bmiraski@mrisports.com