In "The Old Days" .... This ALL would have been settled by 8 PM EST, January 1, 2024 in the "ROSE BOWL".... BUT. NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! LOL!!!
Just to PISS OFF YOU CFP Supporters
- Thread starter Chicken Soup
- Start date
That place is a dump located in a dump. Who cares about the rose bowl. This is 10x better .
Oh no!! ANOTHER game with 2 elite teams battling each other!! Whatever will we do??? Lol
Friend ... same two teams!!! ....??? ......... 1/1/2024 vs 1/8 2024???
And The Election was stolen???
Doesn’t feel like 2 elite teams so far. Michigan looked the part early but not so since. Rose Bowl had a much better feel to it as a heavyweight matchup.
THERE IS...NO RULEs' I think you want to make good points but the use of ,......and CAPS takes away from that. Reading your posts reminds me of Progressive commercials' You tend to ramble and blame everything on our President. Please make sure to take your meds with food
Nah. It was an ok game. Washington never really found traction offensively. They did make great defensive adjustments. UM played kind of sloppy after that first quarter.
Rose Bowl was a FAR better game. If the Rose Bowl was a 10, this game was a 7. Not a terrible game, but it didn’t have the feel of a heavyweight slugfest like the Rose Bowl.
After watching it all play out, I can confidently say UGA was the best team in the country.
Maybe but you have to win. Georgia knew they had to win that game and clearly choked.
I think it's pretty easy to argue against. The team that beat UGA got knocked out of the first round of the playoffs.
Ah, the old transitive property.
By that logic, you could make a case for Wyoming. Bama lost to Texas who lost to OU who lost to Kansas who lost to Wyoming.
So the logic of actual on the field results should take a backseat to the "logic" of the eye test?
In this case, UGA had their chance and lost. They didn't even win their conference, and the team that did, didn't even win their semis.
I wouldn't argue they were better than Alabama, much less to teams that were better than Alabama.
Last edited:
In the playoff format, I think you have teams like Washington and TCU who approach that first game like they are playing the biggest game of their lives, developing a superb game plan, practicing well, and generally coming out ready to play. But after they win it and have to turn around and play an even bigger game with just a one-week turnaround, there's a sense that the moment is bigger than them. It's like they shot their wad in the first game and between the exuberance of winning and the short turnaround, they just seem be not quite ready for the championship game. Meanwhile, teams like Michigan approach the entire process like they are on a mission. Having been to the playoff before and underperforming, their goal was not to make the playoff, but to win it all. Combine that mission with the talent that comes from blue-blood recruiting classes and it's going to be very difficult for a "Cinderella" to win the title game.
Ordinarily I wouldn't say so, but it's like with the NCAA tournament. It's not designed to identify the best team. The goal of a playoff is just the opposite, actually. I mean, in our FF run, were we REALLY one of the 4 best teams in the country that year? Obviously not. We just got hot at the right time. I will say, the 4- team CFP, restricted as it, has for the most part been successful in identifying the best team in college football. By expanding it to 12, the likelihood of that drops precipitouosly.
In the case of UGA, obviously, they lost prior to the CFP, though it is highly questionable that they dropped so far after losing by 3 points to the #8 team in the conference title game in which Bama got some extremely favorable calls that impacted the game.
I don't think it's hard at all to argue that UGA would have handily beaten Washington or Texas. Michigan, you can argue. As Michigan played last night, I think UGA wins.
I'm sure there's a way we can claim the NC...give me a few days.
That's the problem with the "eye test" though. It's way too subjective.
I could watch those games and say Michigan would have beaten any of the playoff teams or UGA, or a fully staffed FSU.
Someone else could see the same games and say something completely different.
I understand how each will have his own opinion. I just disagree with the notion that it's "hard to argue against" UGA being the best team. I think it's very easy to argue against that. But it's opinion vs opinion based on feelings.
I agree. I don’t think you can even say Georgia was the best team. 1 fsu game doesn’t count as any bearing. 2 they lost to Alabama who lost to Texas and Michigan. Those are not really subjective. I absolutely hate the eye test and wish it had no bearing in college football. That is one place the NFL has it right. Win and earn your way in and that’s the way it should be.
lol, there's nothing more subjective than the transitive property.
Seriously? Michigan dominated Alabama (the team that beat Georgia) on the lines of scrimmage. Michigan's special teams miscues made the Rose Bowl interesting; if they play a clean game it's a 2 touchdown victory.
Of course the transitive property comparing Michigan to Georgia based on the common opponent of Alabama is much different and a lot more rational than arguing Wyoming is the best team in the country.
And if Bama doesn't get some extremely favorable calls, UGA wins that game.
If, if, if
If games are always fun, but what isn't an "if" is that Michigan's offensive and defensive lines imposed their will on Alabama. Could they do that to Georgia? Impossible to be dogmatic one way or another, but the chances of a repeat of the last Georgia-Michigan game seem slim.
I expected Alabama to beat Michigan because of the lines of scrimmage. After seeing Ohio State and Penn State struggle against mid-tier SE teams, I didn't think Michigan had a chance. The way they dominated the lines of scrimmage was impressive. It's been a long time since anyone did that to Alabama.
There are a couple other "ifs".
IF UGA played Bama, we could settle it on the field.
IF the winner of that game got into the playoffs, they'd have a chance to prove theyre better on the field.
IF only these two things could happen, we wouldn't need to argue about subjective opinions on what the eye test is telling us.
IF UGA played Bama, we could settle it on the field.
IF the winner of that game got into the playoffs, they'd have a chance to prove theyre better on the field.
IF only these two things could happen, we wouldn't need to argue about subjective opinions on what the eye test is telling us.
Okay. If we go double elimination, we could shoot for 4.
I would give almost anything to have a Bama/UGA title game next year. That would be priceless. I would never give a dime to NIL, but I'd pay for that if I could.