2024 CFB polls/rankings - Texas #3/ #2 /#2 (CFP/AP/Coaches)

[The Dog 44,215]

the bottom of the big ten is really terrible.

[Wilcox Cummingtonite 3,129]

18 hours ago, Mr. Drummond said:

as much as I think scar is playing better than Bama, and how much I want Bama not to make the playoffs,  head to head has to matter.   Actual games have to matter.  

2008 BCS says fuck head-to-head.

[Hermanator 7,308]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Except the Big Ten has more than 4 teams. 

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

[Js1 85,828]

6 minutes ago, The Dog said:

the bottom of the big ten is really terrible.

MSST would beat the dog shit out of Purdue 

[Texas Wahoo 3,521]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Except the Big Ten has more than 4 teams. 

[Huckleberry 33,608]

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. 

[Drew 2,675]

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.

[BurntOrange&White 40,496]

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. 

[Crockett 504]

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 👆

[Chuckie Finster 22,784]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

CCG need to go away is all we learned this season. 

If you really want to see a shitshow, take away the CCG in the era of superconferences and unbalanced schedules.  

[Burt Macklin 19,132]

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.

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 21 hours ago by Burt Macklin

[heso 2,834]

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. 

[BurntEyes 6,089]

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.

[Mr. Drummond 2,220]

1 hour ago, Wilcox Cummingtonite said:

2008 BCS says fuck head-to-head.

It was bullshit then, and it would be bullshit now.     

[Huckleberry 33,608]

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.

[Red Five 41,094]

7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

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

I think he meant Indiana?

[JBJ 3,694]

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:

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.

[heso 2,834]

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 20 hours ago by heso

[BurntEyes 6,089]

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.

[heso 2,834]

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. 

[Longhornlove 4,928]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

the bottom of the big ten is really terrible.

The bottom of my toilet is pretty gross too.

[BurntEyes 6,089]

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.

[Huckleberry 33,608]

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 20 hours ago by Huckleberry

[Huckleberry 33,608]

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)

[WBT 20,766]

1 hour ago, Wilcox Cummingtonite said:

2008 BCS says fuck head-to-head.

The 3 teams were 1-1 against each other.

[Drew 2,675]

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.

[LTtxfan 49,423]

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.

[JBJ 3,694]

Pretty sure that is an extremely popular opinion.

[WBT 20,766]

I can see it either way.  If you force intraconference games in the first round you reduce the possibility of having them in the QF and SF

[heso 2,834]

There is zero chance they have an uga - Tenn rematch in the 1st round. 

[Js1 85,828]

Just now, heso said:

There is zero chance they have an uga - Tenn rematch in the 1st round. 

This. They’ll move someone up or down to avoid an SEC-SEC or B1G-B1G matchup in round 1. Especially a regular season rematch 

[heso 2,834]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

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. 

Yea I’m not going to die on that hill fighting for Bert and the Illini. Maybe 11-1 was a bit much, maybe not. but it’s not at all absurd to expect that they, and half a dozen other big ten teams would be at the top of the big 12, with a shot at the playoff. 

the big 12 has a losing record ooc to the big ten, acc, and pac 12. They are 2-2 against the sec with their wins being arky & miss st. Colorado got beat handily by Nebraska. 

[BurntOrange&White 40,496]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

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. 

Perhaps you never heard of this CFP metric call the eye test. 

[Js1 85,828]

4 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Perhaps you never heard of this CFP metric call the eye test. 

Not familiar with that one. I am quite familiar with their metric of “whatever, we do what we want” 

[Hornius Emeritus 12,508]

So there is a potential this weekend for Texas, Oregon, SMU, and Arizona State to all immediately walk into their new conferences and win them?

I'm beginning to see why some of the old schools didn't favor allowing the new schools into their conferences. 😀

 

['stache 21,919]

2 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

So there is a potential this weekend for Texas, Oregon, SMU, and Arizona State to all immediately walk into their new conferences and win them?

I'm beginning to see why some of the old schools didn't favor allowing the new schools into their conferences. 😀

 

Some ACC schools didn't want SMU, so it's pretty damn funny that they ran through it and hopefully closes it out this weekend.

I'm pretty sure aggy was the only SEC school butthurt about the new adds, UT in particular.

I know the BIG was hestant at first about UO and UW but my guess is they're fine considering the money.

The Big XII was ecstatic to get the four corners. 

[Biggus Duckus 90]

39 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

So there is a potential this weekend for Texas, Oregon, SMU, and Arizona State to all immediately walk into their new conferences and win them?

I'm beginning to see why some of the old schools didn't favor allowing the new schools into their conferences. 😀

 

I'm super grateful we only had to face Big Ten teams that all kind of feel the same, instead of jumping from Air Raid to smashmouth to West Coast to RPO to whatever voodoo goes on in Tempe/Tucson.

[satyanash 14,832]

 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,809]

2 hours ago, WBT said:

I can see it either way.  If you force intraconference games in the first round you reduce the possibility of having them in the QF and SF

Well, you can't have four Big 10 teams, and also avoid conference rematches later on. Those Big 10 teams are going to lose

[chainsaw 10,033]

11 minutes ago, satyanash said:

 

He has Georgia playing a 17 game season. No way Bama loses to Pedo, no way Ohio State beats Tenn, and of course if Texas cracks the code in the CCG they won't fall to Georgia in the playoffs.

[Steamboat1874 4,175]

I think some of you are underestimating the Big XII.

While there is no great team it is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.

[jimmyjazz 46,502]

6 hours 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

They'd be ~ 5 pt favorite over Colorado (neutral site).

[Surly Bevo 25,539]

25 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I think some of you are underestimating the Big XII.

While there is no great team it is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.

The funny thing about the Big 12 is that teams like Iowa State, Arizona State, BYU etc would be thought better of if they had a win over say Texas, or Oklahoma on their resume.  It's the problem for a conference that has no helmet cache.

Edited 16 hours ago by Surly Bevo

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,809]

30 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I think some of you are underestimating the Big XII.

While there is no great team it is a pretty solid conference top to bottom.

[heso 2,834]

45 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

He has Georgia playing a 17 game season. No way Bama loses to Pedo, no way Ohio State beats Tenn, and of course if Texas cracks the code in the CCG they won't fall to Georgia in the playoffs.

lol, the Bama that lost to Vandy and scored 3 points against OU? 

s-e-c s-e-c s-e-c

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13,172]

48 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

if Texas cracks the code in the CCG they won't fall to Georgia in the playoffs.

Always look forward to the fan bias. 

[Magus Ossis 2,889]

Kansas would beat Bama

 

 

and lose to MSU

[Hermanator 7,308]

5 hours 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. 

No I'm not at all. I've said the SEC is the best conference because it has the top end teams and even the bottom teams are talented and can rise up and bite you. 

The big 12 doesn't have any top teams and the entire conference is g5 level talent. Their "top" 2 teams wouldn't place top 5 or 6 in the SEC or Big 10. So what are the rest of the teams? They're a bunch of scrubs teams. It's a basketball conference now. 

So for the playoffs discussion it's important to note when a team has to play a conference slate of talented teams vs a conference slate of scrubs teams. 

The best win between ISU and AZ St is Iowa, who only played 1 team that finished in the top 8 in the Big 10 and lost to them by 28 points. It's a garbage conference. 

 

[DaysOff 8,012]

Satya is probably still beating off to those quarter finals results.

[Hermanator 7,308]

2 hours ago, heso said:

 

the big 12 has a losing record ooc to the big ten, acc, and pac 12. They are 2-2 against the sec with their wins being arky & miss st. Colorado got beat handily by Nebraska. 

That's the point. Not even 1 Big 12 team can match the talent level of even Aggy. They got raided by the portal and NIL and have zero wins as a conference against any teams that will even be considered for the playoffs outside of SMU, which itself has played nobody. They didn't play Clemson or Miami, the only two teams in the ACC who could be considered able to challenge the top 5 in the Big 10 or SEC. That's why I believe SMU gets handled on Saturday and Clemson goes to the playoff. 

If Texas hosted a first round playoff game would you feel more confident if they hosted ASU/ISU/SMU or Ole Miss/Alabama/South Carolina? 

Every Texas fan would want the first 3 because obviously the last 3 are far more talented and better teams.