Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

My definition is inadequate to you.  I'm not sure why you're wanting me to lump in a bunch of teams that don't fit the criteria of the oddity I've observed in my "overly narrow" scope.  THAT would be inaccurate.  THAT would be dishonest.  Artificially inflating a sample size of 20 with an additional 50 data points in order to appease utee94 would be inadequate and inaccurate.  

It's not just me that's rejecting your oddly limited definition of emotionally impacted teams, when you're attempting to prove that emotional impact is a major factor.  Look at the threads.  I'm hardly the only one rejecting your definitions and assertions.

It's not just me that's rejecting your oddly limited definition of emotionally impacted teams, when you're attempting to prove that emotional impact is a major factor.  Loom at the threads.  I'm hardly the only one rejecting your definitions and assertions.

A bunch of "nuh uh"s and "I doubt it"s aren't really going to sway me, lol.  
A 12-15 record by a bunch of teams with an average win% of well over .900, to me, is noteworthy.  Instead of shitting all over my hypothesis, why don't you do the research on YOUR set of teams and see what comes out?
You know, DO something.

A bunch of "nuh uh"s and "I doubt it"s aren't really going to sway me, lol.  
A 12-15 record by a bunch of teams with an average win% of well over .900, to me, is noteworthy.  Instead of shitting all over my hypothesis, why don't you do the research on YOUR set of teams and see what comes out?
You know, DO something.

You're the one attempting to prove your hypothesis.  You have yet to do so.  Why are you asking me to do your job for you?
Also, please feel free to limit your contentions to the thread you created to harbor them.  That was a good idea and I applaud it.  No need to clutter up THIS thread by repeating the same stuff being discussed on the thread you created specifically for it.

 Will be interesting to see if another coaching change slows that dynasty at all. The last one didn’t, but who knows? 

I think that tonight's game is big in terms of how Clemson will be viewed when we look back at this era in say 20 years.  

So far in the CFP era (5 years, 2014-2018) the Tide have made the playoff every year and only ever lost TWO CFP games:

• 2014 Bama lost in the semi-final to Ohio State, Ohio State won the NC.  Clemson was not in the CFP.  
• 2015 Bama won the whole thing beating Clemson in the NC.  
• 2016 Bama lost in the NC to Clemson.  
• 2017 Bama won the whole thing beating Clemson in the semi-final.  
• 2018 Either Bama or Clemson will win the NC by beating the other in the NC.  

In CFP game Bama leads Clemson 2-1.  If Clemson wins tonight then that moves to even and Clemson joins Bama as one of two MAJOR powers of this era.  If the Tide win then Clemson hasn't done much more than Ohio State (knocked off Bama once and won one NC).  Also, over the past two years you can argue that Bama's biggest contender is UGA not Clemson especially if the Tide run the Tigers out of Levi's Stadium tonight.  

Overall, Bama is 14-3 against Clemson.  The Tigers won the first two meetings (both neutral site @847badgerfan will be glad to know, LoL) then Bama reeled off 13 straight from 1909-2016 before Clemson's NC win in 2017 (2016 season).  Then Bama won again last year.   

The utter lack of 2-loss teams this year is so weird.  

I just played the matchup on my cards & dice game....
48 Alabama
21 Clemson

Tide got up 31-0 at halftime, including a pick-6.  Then Jacobs ran the 2nd half kickoff back 100 yards.  Clemson fought back, but too little, too late.