Jump to content

FINAL 2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #4 /#3 (CFP/AP/Coaches)


Recommended Posts

Posted

Is Lane Kiffin politicking for Ole Miss on Twitter the new "Mack Brown appears on halftime shows to lobby for Texas to get in a BCS bowl over Cal?" 

Posted
4 hours ago, statsman said:

Why would BYU get in ahead of Alabama?

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think SMU is in even with a loss and even over Alabama. They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome. SMU would be in if the seeding was today. The Big XII runner-up isn't in as of right now so only the champ gets in this year. If they let Bama in over a runner-up SMU who should be viewed as a one loss team vs a three loss Bama the committee will do to CCGs what they said they would not, and even though its the ACC, it would not be good for the system. But I really think SMU wiill win and will be the only ACC team in so Bama will get a spot.

This is all still up in the air. We'll see on Tuesday. Most likely they'll sort it to keep their options open for another week. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

So what Alabama got blown out by shitty teams? They are called 'Alabama' so they are in.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

They beat Georgia which is the litmus test for college football...apparently.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, General Specific said:

CCG’s are about the $ most years. Take this year for B10 and SEC for example, Oregon won all their games in conference, Texas finished with one loss. A case could be made that these two teams are their conference champions.

That's how it worked for those 2 conferences this year but the CCG will be needed more as the conferences have gotten too big AND dropped divisions.  Eventually a conference is going to have 3 teams go undefeated in conference and 1 will be left out of the CG due to strength of schedule.

Edited by WBT
Posted
41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome.

Has anyone on the committee said this or has this been media speculation?  I don't watch the tuesday espn show.

There already too few games to rank the teams.  It seems silly to ignore the CGs.

Posted
1 hour ago, LTtxfan said:

⬆⬆⬆⬆ 

Go ahead and set up a 16 team playoff

 

This is a dangerous road.  If we go to 16, eventually somebody will want to make it 32, then aggy is making the playoffs about 1/3 of the time, which makes a farce of the whole thing.

 

 

 

Snicker.  Chortle.  Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

So what Alabama got blown out by shitty teams? They are called 'Alabama' so they are in.

 

Yup, they are going to find a way to get Alabama in. 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, WBT said:

Has anyone on the committee said this or has this been media speculation?  I don't watch the tuesday espn show.

There already too few games to rank the teams.  It seems silly to ignore the CGs.

Agreed, plus you're saying that the winner should get a benefit but the loser should suffer no consequence. That's silly and is exactly why I think I've only heard conference commissioners and their media lackeys make this argument. 

Yes losing a CCG against a highly ranked opponent shouldn't hurt you very much but that's the same with any matchup of top teams. 

Posted
28 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

OK, so you claim Alabama is less deserving than BYU, because it has one more loss, and one of the two 6-6 teams that beat it, did so solidly. 
 
OK, Army has one less loss than BYU. Army lost to a CFP team, on the road, while BYU’s worst loss was at home to a 5-7 Kansas team. 
 
Do you agree Army has a better argument than BYU for an at large?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

image.thumb.png.e1d0a834327c3f279166cdfaaa1c780d.png

 

My projections for tomorrow, they've had the same as I have the last two weeks. A shit ton will change from this to post CCG.

 

 

We have the chance for a Clemson 12 if they win and a Boise 3 seed if they win with Arizona St getting the 4 if they win - CCG scenarios

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

think SMU is in even with a loss and even over Alabama. They said that teams would not be punished for participating in CCGs so if they are in before the game they should be in afterward regardless of outcome.

The committee has said a lot of things and their hit rate on following through isn’t great. I don’t buy that teams wont be punished for losing. Especially if SMU loses. Their SOS is around 75th depending on the metric you use and their best win currently is an 8-4 Louisville. The only team currently in the top 25 they’ve played all year is BYU and they lost. If they also lose to Clemson and have no top 25 wins all year, the committee is absolutely going to punish them. 
 

And that’s probably the right move. SMU doesn’t deserve to be in the playoff if they don’t beat Clemson this week. Their schedule has been easier than every other CFP contender and their ELS (expected number of losses for a team 2 standard deviations above the mean) is .6 (84th in the country), so they’re actually underperforming the record  a playoff-quality team should have with their schedule currently. 

Edited by Burt Macklin
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think the committee is going to want to put 4 SEC teams into the tourney.  Selecting Bama would result in the most backlash, especially after last year.  They have two good alternatives in Ole Miss and South Carolina. My guess is that if SMU loses, one of them will get in over Bama.  I want it to be South Carolina just to see the meltdown by Ole Miss and Bama, who both beat the cocks.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Fud said:

The 7 vs 10 matchup will almost certainly be an SEC vs Big 10 game, and they probably won't put Texas and Georgia on the same side of the bracket, so I don't think a two-seed Texas will see Georgia as the seven seed. I think we'd see something like Penn State (7) vs Bama (10), or Tennessee (7) vs Indiana (10) to avoid the third matchup before the title game

If SMU sneaks in as an at-large, they'll be the 11 seed and we'll miss them 

This - I don't believe the committee when they say they don't care about rematches. There's no way UGA and Texas are facing each other any earlier than the semis. They'll rank the teams accordingly to avoid that.

59 minutes ago, ztejas said:

The more I think about it the more I think that SMU dog walks Clemson and a lot of this discussion is silly. 

Neither team has any really good wins other than SMU's win at Louisville (who beat Clemson). Both Sagarin and Massey have this game as a toss-up. I think that's due to Clemson's games against USCe and UGA (even though they were losses).

A lot of the national coverage is assuming a Clemson win over SMU with SMU getting the last at large. Bama getting in is completely dependent on SMU winning and the committee ignoring the other 2 loss teams.

35 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Well for starters, Alabama has 3 losses. They also got smoked by Oklahoma, a 6-6 team, and only scored 3 points. BYU beat the likely ACC champ on the road and its two losses are by a combined 9 points. 

The only 3 loss team that is getting in would be Georgia if they lose next week. Their schedule was brutal and have a boatload of quality wins. 

23 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

They beat Georgia which is the litmus test for college football...apparently.

Georgia has been doing all of the heavy lifting for Bama and Ole Miss - largely due to their win in Austin.

Something we need to consider is what happened last year - the #1 team losing its conference championship game changed things dramatically. Alabama beating Georgia knocked out TWO teams from the top four last year. 

Here were the week 13 rankings:

1. UGA

2. Michigan

3. Washington

4. FSU

5. Oregon

6. Ohio State

7. Texas

8. Alabama

And then week 14 with Bama beating UGA:

1. Michigan

2. Washington

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. FSU

6. UGA

7. Ohio State

8. Oregon

Both Massey and Sagarin consider Oregon and Penn State a toss-up. What if PSU beats the Ducks?

Posted
10 minutes ago, HookEm said:

I think the committee is going to want to put 4 SEC teams into the tourney.  Selecting Bama would result in the most backlash, especially after last year.  They have two good alternatives in Ole Miss and South Carolina. My guess is that if SMU loses, one of them will get in over Bama.  I want it to be South Carolina just to see the meltdown by Ole Miss and Bama, who both beat the cocks.

The problem with South Carolina is that they lost to both Bama and Ole Miss. 

The problem with both Bama and Ole Miss is each has a terrible loss (Bama to OU and Ole Miss to Kentucky). 

That's why Finebaum thinks all three get left out - there's no point in debating the three when there are other 2-loss teams available to consider.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
12 hours ago, The_Great_Hornsby said:

0% chance Oregon loses to Pedo St. They are the definition of Charlie Brown kicking a football. 

You can take Oregon and Penn state out and add tOSU and Michigan last week and that statement would be the same. Yet here we are. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

This - I don't believe the committee when they say they don't care about rematches. There's no way UGA and Texas are facing each other any earlier than the semis. They'll rank the teams accordingly to avoid that.

Neither team has any really good wins other than SMU's win at Louisville (who beat Clemson). Both Sagarin and Massey have this game as a toss-up. I think that's due to Clemson's games against USCe and UGA (even though they were losses).

A lot of the national coverage is assuming a Clemson win over SMU with SMU getting the last at large. Bama getting in is completely dependent on SMU winning and the committee ignoring the other 2 loss teams.

 

I understand that the computers like Clemson enough to have them matching SMU, but I view that as evidence of bias. I don't know how they're biased, but I've lived long enough to know that designers weave their biases into their creations. Some sort of weighting to recent history in prior seasons or some shit wouldn't be surprising.

I bring that up only because I think having Clemson as a pick'em against SMU is fucking dumb. Clemson doesn't have the dudes that they've had in the past. SCar looked substantially bigger than Clemson on both fronts. On the SMU end, they are very fast and not lacking for size compared to Clemson. They also have an electric QB that will give the same Clemson defense that shit itself against Sellers fits. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Agreed, plus you're saying that the winner should get a benefit but the loser should suffer no consequence. That's silly and is exactly why I think I've only heard conference commissioners and their media lackeys make this argument.

If you penalize a CCG loser in favour of a team that didn't make its CCG, you are directly rewarding a team for playing poorly enough to not make its CCG. That's far sillier. It's exactly what happened in 2007 when Kansas jumped ahead of Missouri for the Orange Bowl at-large spot, and it was seen as ridiculously unfair at the time.

By that logic, if SMU loses then BYU should be the one to jump Alabama. BYU went 10-2 and dodged their CCG just like 9-3 Alabama and 10-2 Tennessee by finishing third in the Big 12. They also have a head-to-head win over SMU. And if not BYU, then it should be Miami, who also dodged their CCG by finishing third in the ACC. There are too many arguments for other teams to get that final at-large spot.

GdzjTorWsAAoK0n?format=jpg&name=large

Edited by satyanash
Posted

This system is difficult because of the extremely unbalanced quality level of the conferences. SEC is top to bottom the best, Big 10 has some great top talent but a ton of garbage from the middle down, and the others are basically g5 level. Very difficult to judge a 1 loss SMU equally with teams that played SEC schedules. Clemson just got beaten by a mid tier SEC team, and I'll be surprised if SMU beats Clemson. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Here’s how I see it, based on an assumption they won’t penalize a CCG loser from one of the P4 conferences by knocking them out of the field  

In no matter what:  Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Penn State, ND, Indiana, Ohio State (lol this system sucks), Tenn, SMU, Big 12 winner, MWC winner. 
 

That leaves a spot. Clemson gets it if they win. If not, I could see Miami getting it just so they don’t have to deal with the SEC 3-loss issue. I don’t think BYU will be above Miami when the rankings come out tonight, and they can’t help their case. 
 

I could also see the committee picking SCar on the hot hand theory if they decide they need another SEC team. 
 

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

This system is difficult because of the extremely unbalanced quality level of the conferences. SEC is top to bottom the best, Big 10 has some great top talent but a ton of garbage from the middle down, and the others are basically g5 level. Very difficult to judge a 1 loss SMU equally with teams that played SEC schedules. Clemson just got beaten by a mid tier SEC team, and I'll be surprised if SMU beats Clemson. 

That is why byes should never be a thing in college football.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I understand that the computers like Clemson enough to have them matching SMU, but I view that as evidence of bias. I don't know how they're biased, but I've lived long enough to know that designers weave their biases into their creations. Some sort of weighting to recent history in prior seasons or some shit wouldn't be surprising.

I bring that up only because I think having Clemson as a pick'em against SMU is fucking dumb. Clemson doesn't have the dudes that they've had in the past. SCar looked substantially bigger than Clemson on both fronts. On the SMU end, they are very fast and not lacking for size compared to Clemson. They also have an electric QB that will give the same Clemson defense that shit itself against Sellers fits. 

I don't think it's bias but rather how much they weigh strength of schedule (in this case).

Clemson's out of conference SOS is significantly tougher than SMU's having played both Georgia and South Carolina. Clemson is getting a pretty big boost in their models due to those games IMHO.

 

Edited by The Dog
Posted
16 minutes ago, MrX said:

Here’s how I see it, based on an assumption they won’t penalize a CCG loser from one of the P4 conferences by knocking them out of the field  

In no matter what:  Texas, Georgia, Oregon, Penn State, ND, Indiana, Ohio State (lol this system sucks), Tenn, SMU, Big 12 winner, MWC winner. 
 

That leaves a spot. Clemson gets it if they win. If not, I could see Miami getting it just so they don’t have to deal with the SEC 3-loss issue. I don’t think BYU will be above Miami when the rankings come out tonight, and they can’t help their case. 
 

I could also see the committee picking SCar on the hot hand theory if they decide they need another SEC team. 
 

 

I get what you are saying on SCAR but I really hope the hot hand thing doesn't come into play in football.  not enough games to really know about a "hot hand" like basketball or baseball.

Posted
Just now, dcar00 said:

I get what you are saying on SCAR but I really hope the hot hand thing doesn't come into play in football.  not enough games to really know about a "hot hand" like basketball or baseball.

I agree but it’s probably a mandatory consideration when you’re trying to tiebreak 3 teams that all have 3 losses.  You can poke holes in each team’s résumé all day long. They have 3 losses!

Posted
1 hour ago, statsman said:

OK, so you claim Alabama is less deserving than BYU, because it has one more loss, and one of the two 6-6 teams that beat it, did so solidly. 
 
OK, Army has one less loss than BYU. Army lost to a CFP team, on the road, while BYU’s worst loss was at home to a 5-7 Kansas team. 
 
Do you agree Army has a better argument than BYU for an at large?

Stephen A Smith Eye Roll GIF by ESPN

Posted
16 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Stephen A Smith Eye Roll GIF by ESPN

Ok, now that we have established that you can’t just go off the number of losses, that context matters, tell me why BYU should be in the CFP instead of Alabama. Do you think BYU is better, that they would beat Alabama? 
 
What would be the argument for BYU getting in ahead of the B12 CG loser?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Stephen A Smith Eye Roll GIF by ESPN

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, sidis said:

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

BYU's argument would be that they beat the ACC champ (if SMU wins), lost a close one to the Big 12 champ (if ASU) and lost a close game to a hot Kansas at home.  Meanwhile, Bama got assblasted by a shitty OU and lost to both Tenn and Vandy. 

10-2 > 9-3

Of course, if Georgia wins on Saturday, Bama has a win over the SEC champ, a top-15 SoCar team and top 25 (somehow) Mizzou. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

BYU's argument would be that they beat the ACC champ (if SMU wins), lost a close one to the Big 12 champ (if ASU) and lost a close game to a hot Kansas at home.  Meanwhile, Bama got assblasted by a shitty OU and lost to both Tenn and Vandy. 

10-2 > 9-3

Of course, if Georgia wins on Saturday, Bama has a win over the SEC champ, a top-15 SoCar team and top 25 (somehow) Mizzou. 

i have to say, i have obviously enjoyed this season a great deal as a passionate texas fan. giving up one total offensive touchdown to the combination of ou, arkansas, and agros (none at home) is fun. going to michigan and beating that ass is fun. choosing not to run up on the score on go gata. ohio state losing two games, clemson sucking, usc sucking.

but the one thing that has pissed me off to an extremely irrational point all season is watching missouri stay ranked all year. they have to be the biggest fucking fraud in the history of college football and for some reason, it annoys the ever loving shit out of me that they are getting credit for beating (ranked for quality):

vandy (by 3 in overtime at home)

ou (by 7 at home)

arkansas (by 7 at home)

auburn (by 4)

miss state

boston college (by 6 at home)

umass

buffalo

murray state

they played four road games - and the only one they won was basement miss state. they got fucking raped by the agros, bama, and lost at south carolina by an average of 23 points. fuck off missouri...you have no business sniffing any respect.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, statsman said:

Ok, now that we have established that you can’t just go off the number of losses, that context matters, tell me why BYU should be in the CFP instead of Alabama. Do you think BYU is better, that they would beat Alabama? 
 
What would be the argument for BYU getting in ahead of the B12 CG loser?

Don't be such a dipshit. I already explained my reasoning vs Alabama. My original argument was BYU getting in over SMU if SMU loses in the CCG and then you slide in with akshually... Now you are moving the goalposts again and asking about BYU getting in over the CG loser, an argument I haven't been making. If ASU loses the CG they should get in over BYU due to H2H. With Iowa State, there's an argument to be made for BYU.  

I don't think the SEC is all that (and I definitely don't think the Big 10 is all that, although Oregon looks exceptional) and I think BYU can compete against any SEC team (I don't think we'd beat Texas this year). Every SEC team is beatable. GT took Georgia to 8 OTs. We beat Arkansas last year (and we were a 5-7 team), we beat Tennessee in 2019, we beat MSU in 2016, we beat Ole Miss in 2011. We lost to Texas last year, but you know the record before that with Taysom Hill. We've had success against the SEC. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, sidis said:

byu should have cemented its spot in there the minute alabama got its ass blasted by shitass ou.

but then they went and lost to kansas at home (a week after they should have lost to utah). that killed any argument they had in my mind.

You are not wrong. BYU should have handled it's business. What pisses me off is all the fart sniffing about the Big 10 and SEC getting 4 teams in over 1 team in the Big 12. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, Crockett said:

You are not wrong. BYU should have handled it's business. What pisses me off is all the fart sniffing about the Big 10 and SEC getting 4 teams in over 1 team in the Big 12. 

“BYU should have handled its business”

Same with Bama and Ole Miss lol

Posted
15 hours ago, WBT said:

Along with Miami, the Big 12 CG loser and BYU should be getting consideration to go ahead of the 3 loss SEC teams also.  I don't get the lack of respect of the committee for the Big 12 vis a vis the ACC and Boise.  The power rankings have the Big 12 as the 2nd best conference.

This is sarcasm right??? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Big 12 is lucky to get 1 team into the CFP this year...

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Don't be such a dipshit. I already explained my reasoning vs Alabama. My original argument was BYU getting in over SMU if SMU loses in the CCG and then you slide in with akshually... Now you are moving the goalposts again and asking about BYU getting in over the CG loser, an argument I haven't been making. If ASU loses the CG they should get in over BYU due to H2H. With Iowa State, there's an argument to be made for BYU.  

I don't think the SEC is all that (and I definitely don't think the Big 10 is all that, although Oregon looks exceptional) and I think BYU can compete against any SEC team (I don't think we'd beat Texas this year). Every SEC team is beatable. GT took Georgia to 8 OTs. We beat Arkansas last year (and we were a 5-7 team), we beat Tennessee in 2019, we beat MSU in 2016, we beat Ole Miss in 2011. We lost to Texas last year, but you know the record before that with Taysom Hill. We've had success against the SEC. 

You had a plausible argument until you started talking about wins BYU had last year and going back 13 years ago.  None of that shit matters this year.  Talk about moving goal posts.  You just replaced them with a hockey goal.

Edited by 89Horn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, 89Horn said:

You had a plausible argument until you started talking about wins BYU had last year and going back 13 years ago.  None of that shit matters this year.  Talk about moving goal posts.  You just replaced them with a hockey goal.

The only reason Bama probably gets in is because of historical performance, because this year's performance hasn't been great. I wasn't moving goalposts, just making a point on the unfairness of the SEC getting 4 teams in as if SEC teams are so much better (they're not). 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Crockett said:

The only reason Bama probably gets in is because of historical performance, because this year's performance hasn't been great. I wasn't moving goalposts, just making a point on the unfairness of the SEC getting 4 teams in as if SEC teams are so much better (they're not). 

Alabama would be a ten point favorite over BYU in a neutral site game. They would be a TD favorite over the highest rated B12 team, ISU

Posted

I don't think Indiana has that much better of a resume than Iowa State and it isn't even a consideration to keep them out. Using Massey rankings for easy of use:

ISU 

  • Wins: #24 K-State, #28 Iowa, #30 Baylor, #47 WV, #54 Utah, #57 Cinci
  • Losses:  #34 Tech by 1, at #49 Kansas by 9
  • SoS: #48

Indiana

  • Wins:  #16 Michigan, #35 Washington, #41 UCLA, #45 Nebraska
  • Losses: at #5 OSU by 23
  • SoS: #61 

Nice OOC you have there Indiana.  #113 Charlotte, #126 Florida International, UR W. Illinois. For fucks sake.  At least ISU plays Iowa.  If you don't play a single Power 5 or highly respected other school like Notre Dame, Boise, then F you. You don't deserve to make it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, TexArcher said:

 

 

Strongly disagree with all of this.

The CCG's are for championships.  Co-champs have always been stupid and unsatisfying to both sets of fans.  Championships go on the wall, championship games are good for recruiting, and the games themselves are massively interesting to fans, including neutrals.

And giving the byes to 4 conference champions keeps some of the drama of the regular season.  3-loss aggy was still alive for a playoff spot because they had a chance to upset Texas and then win the CCG.  It keeps more teams alive longer, which makes more games late in the season matter, which is a good thing.

Seeds 1-4 are artificially generated?  By games on the field, as opposed to pollsters' ranking them 1-12 and bestowing byes based on the eye test?  Yeah, this is just wrong.

 

The still would be. Give the top 5 conference auto bids still.  Just not lock them in to the Top 4 spots.

 

There is NO reason the 8th ranked SMU(or lower Clemson) should get the 3 seed or 10th-12th ranked Boise/Big 12 champ gets the 4 seed over the other teams.

Give the Conference champs playoff births, but then seed based on the rankings.

You could even get away from the committee and use the god damn AP to slot them.

5 hours ago, Not a cat said:

If bama sneaks in at 12, it's going to completely screw up this theory that 5 is the sweet spot.  I know this isn't the traditional dominant Saban bama team, but I can list a number of teams I'd much rather play in the first round.

they wouldn't I suspect that IF Bama were to get in, they'd be ranked 11 or 12 this week AHEAD of any Big 12 team, meaning they'll slide up when Miami slides out most likely.

If Bama makes the playoffs they'll be at worst the 11 seed.

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

The AP has ASU at No. 12 and ISU at No. 16. I think the winner will jump Bama to No. 11 and get the 11 seed with Bama getting the 12 seed, assuming SMU wins the ACC CCG and is the only ACC team in the field.

Why would you think that?  I think the Big 12 winner is 12, unless UNLV beats Boise, then they're 12 and the Big 12 champ is 4(LOL)

38 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Ah, you're confusing the top of the conference with the strength of the conference.  The same shit we used to say about the SEC.  Bama ran it for a Decade plus, and every once in a while LSU or Georgia would prop it up too...but under those top 4/5 teams they weren't any better than the Big 12.

 

The Big 12 is a deep and competitive conference.  NO  their Top 4 teams wouldn't win all their games against the 4 best SEC/Big 10 teams.  But 5-12 would hang easily with the 5-12 for the other conferences.  And they don't have Miss St or Purdue in the Big 12.

Edited by Drew
Posted
45 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Any ranking that has the big 12 as the second best conference is shit. There's not one big 12 team beating any of OSU, Oregon, Penn St. Indiana would have won the big 12 most likely. 

It's a conference with a lot of decent g5 level teams. 

Those four teams might be better than any team in the Big 12, but the rest of the Big Ten is shit, which is why none of them lost to any of the other Big Ten Teams except for tOSU on Saturday.  It's hard to tell how good any of those teams are, because except for tOSU, they all only played one good team (tOSU).  

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, is Mizzou continuously staying ranked to prop up Bama?

Always Sunny Reaction GIF

 

I mean, the first expanded playoff featuring SMU, Boise State, and Indiana but not Alabama, Michigan, or Clemson is what everyone wanted, right??

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...