Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
13 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). 

BS.  That’s not what you said.  You prefaced with that the SEC is not all that and that BYU could compete against any SEC team.  You didn’t even mention Bama in your post.  You were touting why BYU is better than Bama over its history of past wins v. SEC teams.  That’s as irrelevant as the number of losses BYU has had against other non-SEC opponents in that same time period.  Let’s just say those other teams are, ahem, not of the same caliber as the SEC.  But, I agree that this year’s resume should be the measuring stick.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Drew said:

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.

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.

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)

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.

South Carolina finished 6th in the SEC and would win the Big 12. The big 12 has a lot of teams close to each other so it's competitive, but those teams are all g5 level talent. 

Arizona St is playing for a big12 title this weekend and they barely beat Mississippi State by 7. At home. Their other non conference wins were over Texas St and Wyoming. The other title game team is ISU who beat Iowa by 1 pt. Iowa finished 5th in the Big 10 but only played 1 team that finished in the top 8 in the Big 10. They lost to Ohio St by 28. 

Hell we won a better version of the big 12 last year with one of the worst secondaries in the country. 

Florida might have won the big 12 this year. It's a bunch of low level teams that beat up on each other but no one else of any note. 

The playoffs will probably expose whoever gets in from the big 12, ACC, and Boise. At least we finally get to see if it happens on the field. 

Edited by Hermanator
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Oh c'mon some of that aint true and you know...Florida winning the Big 12? With as awful as they were to start the year?  Yes they finished strong, but they wouldn't have.  SC might have, just depending on matchups, and are literally one of the hottest teams in football right now.

BTW I clearly said i wouldn't pick any Big 12 team to compete with the top of SEC/Big 10 just that as conferences, they're competitive is all.

  • Like 1
Posted

My point is the only big 12 or ACC team that deserves to be in the playoff is the conference champions, and that's only because they get an auto bid. Those conferences are so bad their conference champion won't be a top 12 team if purely ranking the best teams. 

Absolutely Florida could have competed for a big 12 title. Colorado did and they got hammered by a shit Nebraska team that didn't even finish in the top half of the Big 10. And the Big 10 only goes 4 deep with teams that could be considered good when compared to the top half of the SEC. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

South Carolina finished 6th in the SEC and would win the Big 12. The big 12 has a lot of teams close to each other so it's competitive, but those teams are all g5 level talent. 

Arizona St is playing for a big12 title this weekend and they barely beat Mississippi State by 7. At home. Their other non conference wins were over Texas St and Wyoming. The other title game team is ISU who beat Iowa by 1 pt. Iowa finished 5th in the Big 10 but only played 1 team that finished in the top 8 in the Big 10. They lost to Ohio St by 28. 

Hell we won a better version of the big 12 last year with one of the worst secondaries in the country. 

Florida might have won the big 12 this year. It's a bunch of low level teams that beat up on each other but no one else of any note. 

The playoffs will probably expose whoever gets in from the big 12, ACC, and Boise. At least we finally get to see if it happens on the field. 

can't do the transitive property stuff in cfb this year. cfb is too fucking whacky this year.

if so, oklahoma state did not win a single game in the big 12 this year (bonkers by the way), but they beat arkansas who beat tennessee who is 3rd in sec and beat bama who beat georgia who beat texas.

it's all a bit silly this year.

that said, there really is not a team in the big 12 this year that i would be particularly angsty about playing. november asu and september byu would be the two teams that would be the least comfortable going into the game but the rest of them would be an assbeating in my estimation and i would rather play those two teams right now than south carolina.

regardless, i would happily take games against indiana or penn state (at home) first and foremost above anyone.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

 

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

I'm fine with it, but neither Clemson or Michigan are legitimately in the 12 best teams in the country. 

If based on how good they can be when playing right Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama are better teams than Boise, SMU, or Iowa State. Probably better than Indiana as well. They just played schedules that are so much more difficult than those 4 teams that are ranked ahead of them. The disparity in schedule difficulty is insane. The big 12 only played 3 non conference games, and as far as I know Iowa is the best non conference win in the conference. It's the little sisters of the poor beating up on each other then calling the ones that only ended up with 2 losses playoff worthy.  

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

can't do the transitive property stuff in cfb this year. cfb is too fucking whacky this year.

if so, oklahoma state did not win a single game in the big 12 this year (bonkers by the way), but they beat arkansas who beat tennessee who is 3rd in sec and beat bama who beat georgia who beat texas.

it's all a bit silly this year.

that said, there really is not a team in the big 12 this year that i would be particularly angsty about playing. november asu and september byu would be the two teams that would be the least comfortable going into the game but the rest of them would be an assbeating in my estimation and i would rather play those two teams right now than south carolina.

regardless, i would happily take games against indiana or penn state (at home) first and foremost above anyone.

You can't look at a single game then translate it out like that, that's stupid, but you can look at the overall conference and see who did they play? Who did they beat? 

I'm not saying to keep them out of the playoffs. Put both SMU and Clemson and both ISU and ASU in if you want. Makes our road easier. But top to bottom there's far more talented teams that played far more difficult schedules that lost more games but would beat those teams. 

I'll be surprised if the playoffs don't expose every non SEC and Big 10 team in the playoff. I hope they seed it so those teams get Big 10 and SEC team matchups in the first 2 rounds and we can see for ourselves. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

How exactly does the bowl selection work for the second round?

There is no exactly.  The committee places them as they see fit with preference shown towards higher seed teams.

Kinda like the basketball tournament.

Edited by JBJ
Posted
Just now, BurntOrange&White said:

Is that preference geographically based? 

I would bet a #1 B1G would be placed in the Rose Bowl, so not necessarily but mostly geographic is probably correct.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

You can't look at a single game then translate it out like that, that's stupid, but you can look at the overall conference and see who did they play? Who did they beat? 

I'm not saying to keep them out of the playoffs. Put both SMU and Clemson and both ISU and ASU in if you want. Makes our road easier. But top to bottom there's far more talented teams that played far more difficult schedules that lost more games but would beat those teams. 

I'll be surprised if the playoffs don't expose every non SEC and Big 10 team in the playoff. I hope they seed it so those teams get Big 10 and SEC team matchups in the first 2 rounds and we can see for ourselves. 

Disagree some what. 
In 2022, a TCU team that really wasn’t much better than Texas beat Michigan in the semifinal. They used Duggan as a runner, which opens a lot of stuff up in college football. It’s like a cheat code 
 
But, he had 16 carries against Michigan, and he wasn’t recovered the next week when they played Georgia. 
 
In the 12 team playoff, I think B12 teams and ACC teams can win some first round games. They call it a “puncher’s chance”. I don’t think you will see them do well the second round. Lack of size on the lines will hurt them. 

Posted
59 minutes ago, statsman said:

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

What was the spread before the Oklahoma game? 

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, statsman said:

Disagree some what. 
In 2022, a TCU team that really wasn’t much better than Texas beat Michigan in the semifinal. They used Duggan as a runner, which opens a lot of stuff up in college football. It’s like a cheat code 
 
But, he had 16 carries against Michigan, and he wasn’t recovered the next week when they played Georgia. 
 
In the 12 team playoff, I think B12 teams and ACC teams can win some first round games. They call it a “puncher’s chance”. I don’t think you will see them do well the second round. Lack of size on the lines will hurt them. 

It'll be nice to see what happens. 

The counter to that is I think that TCU team was far better than any big 12 team this year. The last 2 years of conference realignment and portal/NIL have really decimated those big 12 and ACC teams from a talent standpoint. I think we'll see the gap got a lot wider in 2 years. 

There may be a single upset, but I'll be surprised if there's more than that. 

Posted

As I read this thread, I take some measure of satisfaction that the argument is focused on which team is the 11th or 12th best team in the country (instead of the 3rd or 5th).

Progress!!

Posted

If Michigan wanted to make the playoff they shouldn't have lost 5 games.

If Clemson wants to make the playoff they need to beat SMU.

If Iowa State wants to make the playoff they need to beat Arizona State.

If Alabama wanted to make the playoff they shouldn't have lost to ousux.

I'll be honest, I don't know why Pedo State got into the CCG over Indiana, but whatever the reason is, Indiana doesn't control its own destiny. I would advocate for Indiana to sneak in over the B1G CCG loser, even if that loser is Oregon.

I would prioritize qualification in the following order of importance:

  1. exactly 3 teams qualify from SEC (UGA, Tex, Tenn)
  2. at most 3 teams qualify from B1G (Oregon, Pedo, IU)
  3. exactly 1 team qualifies from Big12 (CCG winner)
  4. exactly 1 team qualifies from ACC (CCG winner)
  5. at most 1 Independent team qualifies if they have 10+ wins (ND)
  6. outstanding G5s quaify if they have 10+ wins and only quality losses (Boise)

Based on this year's results, ten teams would qualify for the playoffs, leaving two discretionary slots.

My sense is that the committee is going to have the following priorities:

  1. Ohio State (10-2)
  2. SMU if it loses the ACC CCG (11-2)
  3. Miami (10-2)
  4. Arizona State if it loses the Big12 CCG (10-3)
  5. Iowa State if it loses the Big 12 CCG (10-3)
  6. Ole Miss (9-3)
  7. SCar (9-3)

I would prefer that SMU and Arizona State got in, because I don't want to see B1G over-represented and I don't think Miami is any good.

Assuming those twelve teams qualify, I think they should be seeded:

  1. Oregon (13-0) - B1G Champ
  2. Texas (12-1) - SEC Champ
  3. Boise (12-1) - MWC Champ
  4. Clemson/Arizona State (11-2) - ACC/Big12 Champ
  5. Pedo (11-2)
  6. Georgia (10-3)
  7. Notre Dame (11-1)
  8. Clemson/Arizona State (11-2) - ACC/Big12 Champ
  9. Indiana (11-1)
  10. SMU (11-2)
  11. Tennessee (10-2)
  12. Ohio State (10-2)
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

The committee has said the conference title game loss won't count against a team for the playoff. So the committee needs to decide this week which teams are in regardless and which teams need a title game win to be in. Then just adjust for upsets. 

They really need to keep record of this process then release it to the public after the playoffs are set. Be transparent with your reasoning. 

Posted
52 minutes ago, 89Horn said:

BS.  That’s not what you said.  You prefaced with that the SEC is not all that and that BYU could compete against any SEC team.  You didn’t even mention Bama in your post.  You were touting why BYU is better than Bama over its history of past wins v. SEC teams.  That’s as irrelevant as the number of losses BYU has had against other non-SEC opponents in that same time period.  Let’s just say those other teams are, ahem, not of the same caliber as the SEC.  But, I agree that this year’s resume should be the measuring stick.

For clarity's sake, let me summarize my recent points:

  • If SMU loses in the CCG, BYU deserves to be in the playoff over SMU.
  • I was asked why BYU is more deserving of getting into the playoff over Bama, which I answered.
  • I was making a secondary point about the SEC not being all that and does not deserve 4 playoff spots this year while the Big 12 deserves only 1. I included BYU's recent historical wins over SEC teams as a point that BYU can compete against SEC teams, generally-speaking, and by extension I think the top of the Big 12 can compete with most of the SEC (Texas seems to be on another level this year, tho). The SEC usually has 1-3 elite teams each year, but beyond that is mid to bad. 
  • I do not think BYU is a better team or program historically over Bama. 
Posted
1 hour 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. 

Except the Big Ten has more than 4 teams. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Not that are getting in the playoff they don't. 

The problem is you are equating top team strength with overall conference quality. It's probably because you are doing the same thing the media does and completely undervaluing the difficulty of beating a slate of competent teams compared to beating one or two great teams and a bunch of scrubs.

Ask Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Ohio State, etc. about having to play all those teams in the #25-#50 range. It's not easy to beat them all without slipping up. A schedule with one great team and a bunch of scrubs is incredibly easier to manage than a schedule with no great team but 10 good ones. Oregon, Penn State, and Indiana all had just as easy or easier schedules to go 10-2 against than Iowa State did. And that's why. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Does no one see ND getting 5?  They're already ranked there..and i can see them moving Pedo behind them, and even Texas for reasons.

I think the ONLY lock for 5 over ND is Oregon with a loss...i would suspect Texas would be too since we've basically been Top 5 all year.

Posted
Just now, Drew said:

Does no one see ND getting 5?  They're already ranked there..and i can see them moving Pedo behind them, and even Texas for reasons.

I think the ONLY lock for 5 over ND is Oregon with a loss...i would suspect Texas would be too since we've basically been Top 5 all year.

Most likely they do if Penn State loses. But if James Franklin can do the unthinkable then I believe 5 would be Oregon. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The problem is you are equating top team strength with overall conference quality. It's probably because you are doing the same thing the media does and completely undervaluing the difficulty of beating a slate of competent teams compared to beating one or two great teams and a bunch of scrubs.

Ask Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Ohio State, etc. about having to play all those teams in the #25-#50 range. It's not easy to beat them all without slipping up. A schedule with one great team and a bunch of scrubs is incredibly easier to manage than a schedule with no great team but 10 good ones. Oregon, Penn State, and Indiana all had just as easy or easier schedules to go 10-2 against than Iowa State did. And that's why. 

Absolutely this 👆

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, satyanash said:

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

You would have a point if teams played even remotely the same strength of schedule, but they don’t.  SMU’s current SoS is a joke. If they go 0-2 against top 25 teams this season without even playing a single top 15 team, they don’t belong in the playoff. It’s that simple. 

2 hours ago, HookEm said:

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.

This is a truly absurd take. Their resumes look similar only if you ignore the loss column completely. IU and ISU’s SoS isn’t that far apart. ISU lost to two shitty teams. Indiana beat all the shitty teams on their schedule with the only loss being at the #5 team in the country. ISU hasn’t even played a single top 20 team this year. If you drop two games without facing a single top 20 team, how do you belong in the CFP against a team whose only loss is at #5? 
 

And going back to ELS, which is basically how hard your schedule is if you’re a CFP-quality team, ISU is 80th with only .64 expected losses. IU is 43rd with 1.03 expected losses. 

Edited by Burt Macklin
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Illinois would have gone undefeated in the big 12 this year, 11-1 at worst. 

Michigan, Iowa, usc, Nebraska, Minnesota all would have been in contention for a b12 championship and a playoff spot this year. 

The b1g went 3-1 against the b12, with the one loss being Iowa to isu by 1 point on a fg with 9 second left. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Burt Macklin said:

You would have a point if teams played even remotely the same strength of schedule, but they don’t.  SMU’s current SoS is a joke. If they go 0-2 against top 25 teams this season without even playing a single top 15 team, they don’t belong in the playoff. It’s that simple. 

This is a truly absurd take. Their resumes look similar only if you ignore the loss column completely. IU and ISU’s SoS isn’t that far apart. ISU lost to two shitty teams. Indiana beat all the shitty teams on their schedule with the only loss being at the #5 team in the country. ISU hasn’t even played a single top 20 team this year. If you drop two games without facing a single top 20 team, how do you belong in the CFP against a team whose only loss is at #5? 
 

And going back to ELS, which is basically how hard your schedule is if you’re a CFP-quality team, ISU is 80th with only .64 expected losses. IU is 43rd with 1.03 expected losses. 

I think it important to note that IU hasn't just been winning their games. They've been absolutely curb stomping every team not from Ohio.

43.3 IU Average 

14.6 IU opponent average 

28 points or 4 TD average margin of victory and that includes the loss to bucknuts.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, heso said:

Illinois would have gone undefeated in the big 12 this year, 11-1 at worst. 

This is actually more ridiculous than saying Iowa State has a better résumé than Indiana.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The problem is you are equating top team strength with overall conference quality. It's probably because you are doing the same thing the media does and completely undervaluing the difficulty of beating a slate of competent teams compared to beating one or two great teams and a bunch of scrubs.

Ask Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Ohio State, etc. about having to play all those teams in the #25-#50 range. It's not easy to beat them all without slipping up. A schedule with one great team and a bunch of scrubs is incredibly easier to manage than a schedule with no great team but 10 good ones. Oregon, Penn State, and Indiana all had just as easy or easier schedules to go 10-2 against than Iowa State did. And that's why. 

This is a hard to explain concept to people:

image.png.67d9eb855087e0fd92c611c4438ff671.png

Every dot is a P4 school.  Up is higher power rating, down is worse.

The inner circle are all teams capable of pulling a reasonable neutral-site upset against Texas.  Miami is just inside and A&M just outside this bubble.

The second bubble represents tough-but-possible upsets: Auburn, Illinois, Texas Tech and GA Tech are just within this circle.

-----

The inner circle is generally how the media perceives conference strength.  The SEC has 6 teams, B1G 4 teams, ACC 1 team, and B12 0 teams.

The outer circle is generally how strong the conference actually are and how difficult they actually are to win.  The SEC has 14 teams, B1G 10 teams, B12 9 teams, ACC 6 teams.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This is actually more ridiculous than saying Iowa State has a better résumé than Indiana.


They went 9-3. 

They lost to psu, Oregon, and a 1 score game to Minnesota. They beat Kansas who was knocking everyone in the big 12 off. 

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all that they go 11-1 in the b12. 

Maybe 11-1 at worst is a stretch. But 12-0 isn’t at all ridiculous, and they’d most likely be the best team in the b12 this year. 

Edited by heso
Posted
1 minute ago, heso said:


They went 9-3. 

They lost to psu, Oregon, and a 1 score game to Minnesota. They beat Kansas who was knocking everyone in the big 12 off. 

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all that they go 11-1 in the b12. 

Dude Kansas ended 5-7.

They are a great reference largely on the weakness of the B12 but not so much on how well Illinois performed. 

Michigan is the only "quality win" the Illini have on their resume.

Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

Dude Kansas ended 5-7.

They are a great reference largely on the weakness of the B12 but not so much on how well Illinois performed. 

Michigan is the only "quality win" the Illini have on their resume.

It’s just a single data point that they beat a big 12 team. 

All I’m saying is that there are probably 6 teams in the big ten not named Oregon, Penn state, Ohio state, or Indiana that could have competed for the big 12 championship this year. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, heso said:

It’s just a single data point that they beat a big 12 team. 

All I’m saying is that there are probably 6 teams in the big ten not named Oregon, Penn state, Ohio state, or Indiana that could have competed for the big 12 championship this year. 

Eh.. a similar argument could be made that they'd be 5-7. I'm not defending the B12 nor shitting on B1G, but Illinois is not a good team.

Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, heso said:


They went 9-3. 

They lost to psu, Oregon, and a 1 score game to Minnesota. They beat Kansas who was knocking everyone in the big 12 off. 

I don’t think it’s a stretch at all that they go 11-1 in the b12. 

Maybe 11-1 at worst is a stretch. But 12-0 isn’t at all ridiculous, and they’d most likely be the best team in the b12 this year. 

There is literally not a single objective rating set that exists which has Illinois better than every Big 12 team. It's an absurd thing to say. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 2
Posted

So I went ahead and ran my ratings so I could make my own 2-loss schedule rating. Basically measuring how good a team would have to be to have 2 expected losses against their schedule. Listed for the ESPN projected CFP top 25 this week. 

1. Oregon - 0.880 (54)
2. Texas - 0.902 (34)
3. Penn St. - 0.893 (44)
4. Notre Dame - 0.877 (58)
5. Georgia - 0.938 (7)
6. Ohio St. - 0.907 (28)
7. Tennessee - 0.896 (39)
8. SMU - 0.868 (65)
9. Indiana - 0.860 (67)
10. Boise St. - 0.793 (90)
11. Miami (FL) - 0.871 (63)
12. Alabama - 0.923 (15)
13. Mississippi - 0.904 (31)
14. South Carolina - 0.924 (13)
15. Arizona St. - 0.879 (56)
16. Iowa St. - 0.880 (55)
17. Clemson - 0.891 (47)
18. BYU - 0.884 (53)
19. Missouri - 0.903 (32)
20. UNLV - 0.785 (96)
21. Colorado - 0.873 (62)
22. Illinois - 0.895 (40)
23. Syracuse - 0.876 (59)
24. Memphis - 0.730 (115)
25. Texas A&M - 0.930 (11)

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
6 minutes ago, WBT said:

The 3 teams were 1-1 against each other.

And they STILL should have used rankings to eliminate the lowest ranked team. It was silly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Probably won't be popular, but I won't mind if the committee adjusts the final CFP rankings just enough to get more cross-conference 1st Rd games...

In last weeks example below, it's dumb to have tenn/jawja and pennst/Indy matchups.

IMG_1714.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2

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...