quote:
On paper it always looks good. In reality we usually get a blow out when it is 1 verses 4. Why do you think it will all of a suddenly change and become great match ups? No matter how you slice it we will get blow outs. If #1 vs. #4 produces blow outs, then it is silly to think ! vs. 8 ad 2 vs. 7 is suddenly become engaging games.

Please read what I wrote before you respond. This is a discussion board.

My whole point was the 1v4 game isn't the barometer, and nobody says 1v8 will consistently be competitive.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by DawgsLife

Member since Jun 2013

59015 posts

Posted on 12/28/20 at 8:14 pm to chillmonster

quote:
Please read what I wrote before you respond. This is a discussion board.

I did read and I did respond. I thought we were discussing. I just don't understand why you think 2 vs. 7 would be any different than 1 vs. 4? It would be worse, more than likely. If 1 vs. 4 is bad, why is 2 vs. 7 going to be better?

You said you listed what would have been matchups the past few years and they looked good. They all look good until the games are played. that is when the blow outs happen. Most of the 1 vs. 4 games looked fine until they got on the field.

Maybe I am not understanding you. But I sure don't understand why if you add less talented teams to the mix why y'all think the games are going to get magically better.

quote:
My whole point was the 1v4 game isn't the barometer, and nobody says 1v8 will consistently be competitive.

If 1 vs. 4 is a blow out 6 out of 7 years, why would 1 vs. 8 be good at any point? It wouldn't be competitive at any point more than likely. That has been my whole point. Y'all keep saying 1 vs. 8 won't be competitive consistently....crap. 1 vs 4 is not competitive but you apparently believe 1 vs. 8 will be competitive at all?

Maybe your logic just escapes me.

1 vs. 4 is not competitive but 1 vs. 8 might be!