blutow

We are locked in if FSU loses. I'm not sure how washington winning would help Texas, I rather both Washington and Oregon lose this weekend and that would lock Texas as well. Of course, Texas still needs to win out....

Good on McElroy for pushing strongly for Texas over Bama based on head to head if it comes to that. Seems like opinions are pretty split on that one. It really would suck for Bama to be excluded after winning the SEC and they would basically be punished for scheduling a tough team early in the year. The right answer is that Texas and Bama should have been in front of Oregon from the start based on resume, but I can't see how they back pedal from what they have already screwed up (short of just admitting that they screwed up the initial rankings).

Yeah, 13-1 is a great year any way you slice it, but missing CFP with that record (and the nature of our 1 loss) would suck. Even with a really good team, it's hard to get through a season with that record. When the stars align, you absolutely want to take your shot. We'd be a dangerous team in the playoffs. The only potential downside would be a blowout loss, but even that is probably better than a meaningless bowl game where many key players on both teams would probably be sitting out.

If Bama beat Georgia in CCG, it's possible Texas could get the nod over Bama and SEC would be out. Bama would have better resume (and a very big recent win), but Texas would have the head to head. It would be an interesting discussion, but I bet Bama would get in based on overall resume and SEC historical dominance in CFP. Even with SEC bias, I can't see any way a CCG loser (even if it's UGA) gets in over any 1 loss or undefeated CCG winner.

That all happened in the past and should have played into the initial rankings that put Oregon in front of Texas/Alabama. From my perception, they really screwed up the initial ranking and they won't change it going forward unless they can come up with the narrative the explain the logic. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. I don't see them saying "sorry, we didn't put much thought into the initial rankings, but we are looking at it logically now and moving Oregon behind Texas and Bama". Assuming it plays out with Oregon beating undefeated top ~5 Washington in the CCG, the case for Oregon over Texas gets stronger, not weaker.

There is still room for PAC to be left out. I'm not saying it's likely, but Oregon could lose to Oregon state and then Washington loses in the CCG. An FSU loss is far and away the most likely path in for Texas.

Yeah, that's rational/logical. But unfortunately they dug a deep hole by putting Oregon in front of Texas/Bama in the initial rankings (based on eye test at the time and OU loss making our loss look worse). They would need a "narrative" to explain a change going forward. It doesn't have to be a great explanation, but they need something to explain why it's changed. They could explain Bama jumping over Oregon based on a CCG win against Georgia (more impressive than Oregon beating an undefeated Washington), but I don't think a Texas CCG win over a lower ranked OSU or OU could be argued as a bigger win than Oregon over undefeated Washington. If we win out, I still like our chances, but we'll need help. FSU loss is most likely.

+1 on this. Yeah, in some ways it was frustrating to be "so close" for so long, but that's a hell of a lot better than just hoping for bowl eligibility. If Sark can build a program that is in the mix consistently, good things will come. After living through McWilliams and Mackovic and then Strong and Herman, I'm sign up for Mack 2.0 in a heart beat.

The CFP committee chairman mentioned consideration for injuries a couple times during his short interview. I'm not sure if that means they are currently giving teams like Texas propped up a bit until we get healthier or if it means they rank teams based on who is playing right now. I hesitate to read anything into what these guys say, I think it's probably driven by whoever in that room is best at pushing their agenda. I assume there must be ground rules when ESPN asks them questions about the rankings/criteria. Otherwise, why wouldn't ESPN just ask what logic the committee is using to the rank Oregon over Texas and Bama?

+1. I don't think it's a guaranteed outcome either way, but I'd bet on Bama jumping Texas if they win out with a "mic drop" beat down of undefeated Georgia in CCG. Despite being neutral field, people would give that fresh win the edge over a week 2 Texas win over Bama. That's was Bama with a QB making his ~3rd? career start before they got rolling. Then you look at quality of loss and people will give the clear edge to Bama. The head to head would still carry weight, but probably not enough to make up for the other headwinds. Also, it seems clear from week 1 that CFP committee cares about how you win. I struggle to justify Oregon's rating over Texas based on W/L and schedule. But they are winning the beauty contest. Their best win is against Utah (their only win against a ranked team). We've got wins against ranked Alabama and Kansas (and maybe KSU if they work their way back in). I get that the eye test matters, but I think our results are measurably better up to this point. Besides the style points, the losses also matter and Oregon's loss is looking much better than ours (thanks again OU).

Yeah, just ball parking it. Still, likely not in the top 10 with who they have left to play. My point is that there is no path that makes our CCG a really big win against a top brand that is highly ranked. OU crapping themselves removed that as a possibility. Compare that to the possibility of OSU/Mich, Oregon/Wash, Bama/Georgia (not saying all those will be highly ranked, but at least there is a possibility). Those CCG games will carry a lot of weight (much more than our week 2 win). We really need PAC to self destruct before CCG or for FSU to lose whenever. I think think it very likely we get a spot if we win out, but certainly need some help.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they jump us in CFP selection this week, but it really doesn't matter. If they win out, Bama almost certainly goes in over a 1 loss Texas. Recency bias and SEC bias will trump the head to head. And to be fair. Alabama/Milroe has shown a lot of improvement while Texas is struggling with injuries all over the field. The best possible win Texas can have going forward would be CCG (best case against a ~15th ranked 2 loss team and it could be even worse depending on how things play out). There are certainly scenarios where the SEC champ doesn't get a spot, but I think it's much more likely that ACC or PAC have a slip (or even B1G).

I don't see the Saban comparison, I find Saban to be more direct rather than trying to be clever when he doesn't like something or someone. That press conference was a non-stop passive-aggressive FU targeted directly at Jimbo. I thought it was borderline petty and childish, you gotta love it. I wouldn't want LK as a coach, but the guy is certainly entertaining. I can't believe he'd be interested in coaching at ATM, but he certainly went out of his way to prop up everyone except jimbo. I'm guessing that's more about highlighting Jimbo's "less with more" failures, but who knows.

It wouldn't surprise me to see Bama jump Texas as early as next week if we both look good this weekend. Not saying it's right, but the Bama/SEC bias is still real and and a win over LSU is going to be perceived as a lot better than a win against KSU.

Exactly. If they had just contracted him as a 3rd party, there could be some debate about who knew what (even though that debate would be a delusional farce). Once they hired him, he became them and it's clearly against the rules regardless of who knew. UM trying to make the case that other UM staffers didn't know how the signs were being "deciphered" might affect the severity of the penalty, but I'd be very surprised if there isn't a paper trail on these tickets/travel. The level of organizational stupidity here is next level if the reports are accurate. If you make a deliberate decision to cheat, you'd think they would put a little thought into how to cover their tracks if people get suspicious. Maybe we'll find out that the $ transfer was hidden in some clever way, but I'm betting this is just a bunch of knuckle dragging coaches that wanted the signs and didn't think it through.

Sark was already lobbying the committee in his press conference today, making the case that Texas has the best win in college football this year. Nice to see a coach pushing the message early and often, Mack was too soft about that stuff. Already got picked up by ESPN, CBS, etc. https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/38780889/steve-sarkisian-makes-texas-cfp-case-ahead-first-rankings

"versatility", "multiple ways to win"

Winning the head to head (early in the season) is far from a guarantee given the potential circumstances. If they were coming off a CCG win over undefeated Georgia, they'd have a nice fresh win against a top ~3 team and their only loss would be early in the season against a highly ranked Texas team. And our loss to OU isn't aging well and could get worse. We'll have no wins against top teams late in the season, our resume is primarily Alabama in game 2. The committee is all about "body of work", I think they'd pick Bama. That said, I think it's doubtful Bama wins out. Again, just win the games and we are 90% in, but not guaranteed in my opinion.

You are talking about the odds of an individual team going undefeated, not the odds that of having 2 undefeated teams. I haven't look at odds on individual games going forward, just going off history. Having 2 undefeated teams in the playoffs is a reasonable 50/50 bet. In the last several years - 2022 - 2 undefeated 2021 - 1 undefeated 2020 - 2 undefeated 2019 - 3 undefeated 2018 - 3 undefeated Far from certain, but looking at the teams remaining and who that have to play, it's still say that is > 50% chance there are a couple undefeated teams at the end of regular season.

Oregon is probably more likely to win out than Washington. I think there is a >50% chance there will be 2 unbeatens out of MU/OSO, GA, and FSU. Assuming that happens and we win out, it will be a 1 loss beauty contest for the remaining 2 spots. Our resume would have us in the mix, but far from guaranteed. We really need both Washington and Oregon to lose a game prior to CCG and we need Alabama to keep winning. If Bama wins out and beats Georgia in CCG, it would be really hard to leave out a 1 loss Texas when Bama would certainly be in.

Absolutely, but that's why I said he needs to make us a consistent contender (and there is still a long way to go this year). Even TCU can stumble into a great season when the stars align, we need a sustainable program that wins 10+ every year. If Sark can get us to that point, we're in the playoffs most years and you get your shots at championships. While I'm not yet convinced Sark is the guy, I like that he seems very focused on long term foundational stuff and I think he's pushing a style of football that lends itself to consistent long term success. This isn't Herman using a QB as a battering ram to win games. While I don't agree with some of the in game decisions, those are mainly noise in the big picture. I'm trying to judge the guy at the game or even season level, which is ultimately what I care about. And I personally think they are playing a style of football that's really entertaining to watch. For all the folks saying that we're winning ugly, I really wonder if they watch college football.

I don't think it's scrimmage mentality, I think it's simply Sark being stubborn and doubling down on his beliefs and trying to establish program identity. He wants Texas to be a program that exerts their will on opponents, smash them in the mouth and win the day (and all that crap that sounds cheesy, but is actually pretty important). That high level agenda is really important, but that's a long game strategy (years sometimes) and you still have to play smart situational football in the moment. I thought it was bat shit crazy not kicking those field goals to make it a 3 possession game, but I'm not the one who is going to get fired if Sark doesn't make Texas a consistent national contender within the next few years. He seems to have a vision of what he wants Texas football to be and he's stubbornly sticking to it. I'm not sure if that vision is right or wrong or if he's the guy to make it happen, but I like the commitment and consistency. We've been wandering in the desert without a real identity for too long. As much as some of the calls drive me crazy, Texas is playing a really solid and sustainable style of football in my opinion.

Yeah, but they've shown the ability to put up some points and Bama's offense is inconsistent at best. I think it will be a dangerous game for them. Then they have Kentucky and Auburn (both away games). I wouldn't bet against Bama in any of these, but I think there is a decent chance they drop 1. As long as Texas keeps winning, it actually makes some of these other games more interesting. I normally wouldn't give a fuck about most of these games, but when Texas in in the hunt for a CPF position I'll get pretty amped up for any game that has an impact.

Statistically/historically very unlikely. If we do win out, I'd say it's 90%+ likely we are in, but not guaranteed. That said, our chance of winning out is probably under 25% (even though likely favored in all).

Yeah, if that happens then Texas is far from a lock in my opinion. We really need Bama to keep winning and at least play in CCG. Would not be surprised if they drop the LSU game.