Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Boycott Championship Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Eight" data-source="post: 2681701" data-attributes="member: 73370"><p>why doesn't history show more little guys instead of blue bloods if teams could BACK INTO A TITLE A LOT EASIER IN THE PRIOR FORMAT?</p><p></p><p>even when you had multiple polls recognizing multiple champions you still see the name schools repeating again and again and again.</p><p></p><p>here is a link:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history" target="_blank">https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history</a></p><p></p><p>bama 12 titles</p><p>usc 7</p><p>ohio state 5</p><p>nd 5</p><p>miami, fl 5</p><p>neb 5</p><p>ou 4</p><p>texas 4</p><p>clem 3</p><p>lsu 3</p><p>fsu 3</p><p>fla 2</p><p>mich st 2</p><p>penn st 2</p><p>pitt 1</p><p>uga 1</p><p>col 1</p><p>mich 1</p><p>tenn 1</p><p>aub 1</p><p>uw 1</p><p>gtech 1</p><p>byu 1</p><p></p><p>in 1960 the split national title was between ole miss and minnesota. not exactly two blue blood programs and look at the list over the next 59 years. notice a pattern?</p><p></p><p>if it were so much easier who was the little guys that snuck in with all those polls? </p><p></p><p>yes, it would be tough for the "little guys" to go through a 2 or 3 game playoff, but not nearly as difficult as the continued decades of bias when perception was wanted decided the champions over actual performance and history reflects that.</p><p></p><p>reply as you wish because i am done, history just doesn't support your stance and i would much rather tcu have to face an uphill task through a 3-game playoff than count on a group of people in a hotel conference room.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eight, post: 2681701, member: 73370"] why doesn't history show more little guys instead of blue bloods if teams could BACK INTO A TITLE A LOT EASIER IN THE PRIOR FORMAT? even when you had multiple polls recognizing multiple champions you still see the name schools repeating again and again and again. here is a link: [URL]https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history[/URL] bama 12 titles usc 7 ohio state 5 nd 5 miami, fl 5 neb 5 ou 4 texas 4 clem 3 lsu 3 fsu 3 fla 2 mich st 2 penn st 2 pitt 1 uga 1 col 1 mich 1 tenn 1 aub 1 uw 1 gtech 1 byu 1 in 1960 the split national title was between ole miss and minnesota. not exactly two blue blood programs and look at the list over the next 59 years. notice a pattern? if it were so much easier who was the little guys that snuck in with all those polls? yes, it would be tough for the "little guys" to go through a 2 or 3 game playoff, but not nearly as difficult as the continued decades of bias when perception was wanted decided the champions over actual performance and history reflects that. reply as you wish because i am done, history just doesn't support your stance and i would much rather tcu have to face an uphill task through a 3-game playoff than count on a group of people in a hotel conference room. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Boycott Championship Game
Top