I still don't understand it, really. I know TCU might have been "just happy to be here", but 56-7?
They beat Michigan, somehow, a la App State I reckon.
I think of it like our tier system in basketball, but less tied to H/A.
I think if you tier the roster talent, and then the performance, you can explain most things. Ohio State's A game, beats Michigan's A game. But Michigan's A game beats Ohio State's B game. Michigan State's A game might need a D game from Ohio State to keep it close. Ohio State's B game can't beat Michigan's A game, but Ohio State's A game can hang with Georgia's B game.
I think we saw TCU's A- game against Michigan's C game in the semi, and I think we saw the reverse in the championship. I don't think TCU's A game can beat Georgia's A game, but when you see TCU's C game against Georgia's A game, well, 56-7.
It's my biggest issue with the CFP. Does the best team (almost) always win the national title now? Absolutely. But it makes it less interesting, because the talent disparity is too wide. In an era where a title contender might bring their D game to a rainy October afternoon in West Lafayette, or Starkville or Stillwater, against that schools A game, they might lose and fall out. The flukiness negated the talent disparity. Now when teams get a second shot in a CCG, and then just have to have a top 4 resume, and those final 3 games are where you are going to be locked in, eh. You get a true champion more often, but it makes for a les interesting chase
