Posted on 01/09/2017 5:53:04 AM PST by blam
Their first College Football Playoff title game was a thriller, and odds are the rematch will be, too
Tom Fornelli
January 9, 2017
While it certainly isn't a rule, it's generally accepted that the sequel is never quite as good as the original. The logical explanation for this phenomenon is that a movie doesn't get a sequel unless the first installment was popular enough to warrant one, which means that the sequel has lofty expectations to live up to.
As do Alabama and Clemson when they meet Monday night in Tampa for a national championship rematch.
When these two teams met in Glendale, Arizona last year, they gave us all an exciting game. Even if the final minutes of the game didn't provide an incredible amount of drama, Clemson still put on an offensive performance against the Alabama defense that we just aren't used to seeing. Deshaun Watson accounted for 478 yards of offense and four touchdowns, but it just wasn't enough.
And now these two forces meet again.
There's Alabama, a team which seems unstoppable. A team whose rise to yet another national title has seemed pre-destined for just about the entirety of the 2016 season. On the other side is the one team that has truly offered a real threat to Alabama's supremacy in Clemson.
So will this sequel be any good? I don't know, but everybody's already bought their tickets and in their seats with a bucket of popcorn waiting to find out.
Players to watch
Deshaun Watson, Clemson QB: There is no player in this game more important than Deshaun Watson. Simply put, if Clemson wants to win this game, it will need Watson to play spectacularly. If he is just average, or plays subpar...
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at cbssports.com ...
I like your prediction. Roll Tise!
It will come down to if Bama gets yet another defensive score or not. If they do, they win. If not, Clemson will win.
I need an edit button. Roll Tide!
KILL YOUR TV QUIT BEING SPORTS CUCKS AND SUPPORTING WHO HATES YOU
Nota Bene: “super talented” is your term, not mine.
and lost AT HOME, to a bad Pitt team...
The Bama D is pissed off at their performance (or lack of) last year. I expect (hope) they play like their ratings.
The Bama O has been underwhelming since LSU. It is about time to move forward. Hopefully Sark will make that happen.
I cannot give just one score. If the Bama Offense show up:
Bama 35 Clemson 20 (most points from the 4th QTR)
If Clemson channels last year, Tigers 28 Bama 20
Who will be the OJ Howard this year?
Pitt also defeated Rose Bowl contender Penn State, 42-39 Sept 10, 2016.
Unfortunately, Pitt lost its bid at the Pinstripe Bowl vs Northwestern 31-24, Nov 28, 2016.
All-in-all a semi-disappointing, semi-encouraging season for Pitt.
Oh well, "Hail to Pitt!"
Should be a good game. Clemson looked fantastic beating OSU. This one could to either way. Flip a coin.
Clemson almost lost to NC State. It seems the Tigers play at the level of their opponent. If the Clemson team that beat OSU takes the field tonight - the tide will not roll.
Either that or put your fingers on a diet.
I am thinking that much like last week this will be the Bo Scarborough show.
As for unheralded player showing up -- with all the attention Stewart and Ridley will get, my out of nowhere pick is Gehrig Dieter.
Clemson and the over...35-27, Go Tigers!
true enough, But all things being equal I would say Bama D is better than Clem D...
Ah yes, the squish pattern where the Elephant stepped on the Tiger. ... But seriously, this game will not be a s high scoring as last year. Defense is what this game will be all about.
Fold Tide.
The `Don’t Touch My Junk!’ bowl?
OJ Howard of course, with a sprinkle of Calvin Ridley. I predict Scarborough will have a big night. Run it! Run it! Run it down their throats!
Ping to #39. Link minds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.