Good chance of rain tomorrow night and it’s already raining today the national championship should never be played on a field that can alter performance…they worked too hard to get there to do that.
I disagree. Actually I think no game should ever be played in a domed stadium.
Outside trying to throw a wet football slippin and slidin is not a way to determine the best team.
Live 80 miles from SF or Santa Clara now the home of the 49ers and its been raining its @ss off all day and windy as heck, tomorrow is suppose to not be much better
Well both teams have to endure the weather so - advantage who?
I know that both teams are playing in it but my point is you play on a wet field and you can’t throw or run at your best and it can alter the outcome… In my opinion they need perfect weather conditions they’ve earned the right to put all their talents on display.
Hearing there may be a lot of empty seats tonight. Clemson had a hard time selling its allotment and neutral sales have not been good. Looks like the experiment of putting it in Cali may not work (probably was doomed to fail unless USC or Oregon somehow reached the title game).
Tim Brando, who is rarely shy about sharing his opinions, has a pretty good take in this radio interview about this game and the playoffs in general.
https://929thegame.radio.com/media/audi … iew-172019
He thinks the playoff should be expanded to 8 games to open up the CFB game to other parts of the country. He’s advocating growing the sport. Says that only the “country club” teams get in the playoffs and that has to be fixed.
Interesting takes on “scheduling inequities” as well – talking about weak Alabama and Clemson schedules this year. He’d also like to appoint a CFB “czar” to ensure that scheduling is fair from conference to conference and to address other leadership issues lacking in CFB now.
I agree with Youdaman…San Francisco is a bad choice. It can be cold, windy and rainy. Why not in Pasadena at the Rose Bowl or in San Diego if they had to put it in California?
AT&T Stadium in Dallas is a great choice. A magnificent stadium in a reasonably centralized part of the U.S. with a dome if you need it. There are too many better places to put it rather than run the risk of bad weather. San Francisco can have harsh weather…
San Fran may be a bad choice but football is a game meant to be played outside under all weather conditions. Let the chips fall
The number of neutral-site games is a drain on the fans that travel. Think of Clemson: In the past month it has played in Charlotte, Dallas and San Francisco. The tickets are expensive, short-notice travel is expensive and the hotels in those towns jack up their rates the week of the games. There is only so much in the coffer, so I think a lot of people have to choose one over the others.
Its always all about the money…SF won the stadium bid at 25 million. Guess they would have played the game in Timbuktu if some soccer stadium there had bid 30 million!
Bet Bama wishes it had rained, snowed, hailed, gail force winds, sunami, anything.