National Championship Game TCU vs Georgia

National Championships Game

  • TCU

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • Georgia

    Votes: 6 75.0%
  • Total voters
    8
huskerfan702 said:
It should be criminal to add more teams
Click to expand...
If the goal is to change champions, than sure. 

If the goal is to create more compelling games, expanding should do that. Since the top 4 seeds get bye's, the first round should have mostly exciting games. After that, we're pretty likely to see mostly blowouts until the semi-final games. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
If the goal is to change champions, than sure. 

If the goal is to create more compelling games, expanding should do that. Since the top 4 seeds get bye's, the first round should have mostly exciting games. After that, we're pretty likely to see mostly blowouts until the semi-final games. 
Click to expand...
Realistically we know money wins and that’s why it’s expanding the same way the nfl expanded but swears they care about player safety. But there’s just no way you ever have 3 realistic teams that deserve and are capable of being the champ. Winning your conference and playing a competitive schedule should be enough 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adding more teams probably makes for a better title IMO. I don't want to say that TCU got lucky b/c they earned the opportunity, but Michigan, Bama, Penn St, USC, Utah, Tennessee are probably all favorites against the frogs. TCU played the game of their lives last week then got obliterated, should probably weed out the teams with one good performance earlier than the title game.

 
I know alot of people who were going for TCU were extremely disappointed on how they lost.  Everyone thought they would give Georgia a fight.  Georgia and Alabama'are just to powerful with the depth that they have.  Shoot Alabama lost a whole bunch of transfer players anybody care to think if that effects them.  Nope not at all.  Until teams can have more depth to compete with those 2 teams then I guess we just sit back and watch them dominate other teams.

 
It’s not just because of tcu losing. Look at the average margin of victory in the semifinals. It’s just not enough parity in the sport. If you expanded past 4 it would’ve been Georgia vs bama

 
Last edited by a moderator:
huskerfan702 said:
Historically*
Click to expand...


Which would be applicable if it was always the #1 and #2 teams blowing out the #3 and #4 teams.  The #2 team is now 4-5 in the semi-finals.  The #4 team has won the playoff twice.  The #3 team won the playoff last year.

The lower-ranked team beating higher-ranked teams is hardly an argument that there is not enough parity.

 
Mavric said:
Which would be applicable if it was always the #1 and #2 teams blowing out the #3 and #4 teams.  The #2 team is now 4-5 in the semi-finals.  The #4 team has won the playoff twice.  The #3 team won the playoff last year.

The lower-ranked team beating higher-ranked teams is hardly an argument that there is not enough parity.
Click to expand...
My original point is there is never really more than 3 contenders. What circumstances that go into the rankings are outside that point because I’m just saying it’s hard to justify adding anything beyond a 4 team playoff. It’s a group of 2 loss teams out there that didn’t beat anybody all year. Yea when you open it up these teams resume seem like they fit but personally I don’t wanna see a top 4 team vs the PAC 12

 
huskerfan702 said:
My original point is there is never really more than 3 contenders. What circumstances that go into the rankings are outside that point because I’m just saying it’s hard to justify adding anything beyond a 4 team playoff. It’s a group of 2 loss teams out there that didn’t beat anybody all year. Yea when you open it up these teams resume seem like they fit but personally I don’t wanna see a top 4 team vs the PAC 12
Click to expand...


The part where the #4 team has won the playoff twice would seem to be a pretty substantial counter-argument to there never being more than three contenders.

 
Mavric said:
The part where the #4 team has won the playoff twice would seem to be a pretty substantial counter-argument to there never being more than three contenders.
Click to expand...
The problem is, there may be only 2-3 contenders.  But, how you figure out who those are is allow them to play the games.  That's what a playoff does.  

What you are proving here is that three times, the old way of just picking the two teams to play a championship game was a horrible way to do it and it very well could have left out someone who could have won the championship sitting as the 3 or 4 seed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
The part where the #4 team has won the playoff twice would seem to be a pretty substantial counter-argument to there never being more than three contenders.
Click to expand...
Did I say top 3 teams or 3 teams? Sometimes the rankings may favor a team I don’t particularly like but their resume may beat out the #4 team. Your a sticking to this point looking for the got ya but my overall point is it really shouldn’t go beyond 4. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
The problem is, there may be only 2-3 contenders.  But, how you figure out who those are is allow them to play the games.  That's what a playoff does.  

What you are proving here is that twice, the old way of just picking the two teams to play a championship game was a horrible way to do it and it very well could have left out someone who could have won the championship sitting as the 3 or 4 seed.
Click to expand...
This I can agree with. Looking at the history of the BCS I wasn’t mad at it but once you start adding teams like Utah who really didn’t beat anybody except a fraud USC it starts to get carried away 

 
Back
Top