College Football Playoff Rankings

[GRBman]

I was only half kidding but it's true. Fans don't count. If fans counted, the SEC would not have the power they do because of the power 5 areas, they have the fewest fans in their footprint, at least they did until their recent expansion.

Auburn getting left out years ago led to the BCS

It is about the noise that the media makes, mostly ESPN. ESPN has a vested interest in the SEC.

Last year Ohio State was nearly left out and ESPN was telling us that was correct. When we had the sham rematch of LSU vs Bama, all fans except SEC fans were upset. ESPN scolded us that we were dumb and had to accept the rematch because they know what is best.

If the SEC gets left out, ESPN will go full retard in their outrage.

And let's face it, there are only 2 conferences with real power, the Big Ten and the SEC. The other 3 conferences are followers. The Big 12 could have been a major conference but they allowed Texas to strong arm them all which led to TAM and Nebraska leaving.

If the Big 12 had real leadership, not only would they have kept TAM and Nebraska, but they would have added teams. They probably could have poached a few teams like Florida State and Miami who would probably rather play in the south than play up in Syracuse and Boston.

The ACC is weak too. They allow Notre Dame to get the benefit of being in the ACC (taking one of their guaranteed bowl spots) but none of the costs (sharing their TV money).

So yes, we are stuck with 4 teams until the SEC or Big 10 get left out. The SEC will get quicker result due to the additional pressure of ESPN going out of their minds.

Tha ****? You mean they have the fewest PEOPLE in their respective MARKET areas. By way of fans in seats...the SEC is BY FAR the leader in that category. It isn't even close, bro...

As for ESPN having an interest in the SEC? Well, they have the partnership with the SEC Network, but they also partner with the Longhorn Network and they have the exclusive rights to EVERY OTHER CONFERENCE except the Pac12 (which has a side-deal with Fox). You think they (ESPN) would rather see an SEC team get all the publicity when CBS can pick-off those games? Really? Yeah, CBS has the FIRST CHOICE of games every weekend. ESPN's deal with the SEC (and SEC Network) is 2nd.

Y'all can cry "SEC Bias" all day long, but the reality is that the committee is made up of people like Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne and others who don't give 2 ***** about the SEC.

Yes, Auburn getting left out in 2004 was interesting...but DID YOU KNOW... the BCS got its start in 1998... So come off the "well the SEC got us the BCS" ****...it simply isn't true.

 

[Vader]

Tha ****? You mean they have the fewest PEOPLE in their respective MARKET areas. By way of fans in seats...the SEC is BY FAR the leader in that category. It isn't even close, bro...

As for ESPN having an interest in the SEC? Well, they have the partnership with the SEC Network, but they also partner with the Longhorn Network and they have the exclusive rights to EVERY OTHER CONFERENCE except the Pac12 (which has a side-deal with Fox). You think they (ESPN) would rather see an SEC team get all the publicity when CBS can pick-off those games? Really? Yeah, CBS has the FIRST CHOICE of games every weekend. ESPN's deal with the SEC (and SEC Network) is 2nd.

Y'all can cry "SEC Bias" all day long, but the reality is that the committee is made up of people like Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne and others who don't give 2 ***** about the SEC.

Yes, Auburn getting left out in 2004 was interesting...but DID YOU KNOW... the BCS got its start in 1998... So come off the "well the SEC got us the BCS" ****...it simply isn't true.

Good points that will go unanswered. Most of ESPN is from the North east. Hell they are in Bristol which is pats***land. They aren't SEC homers. Not only that but the committee is made up of almost no SEC people. Alvarez, Osborne, Rice and Willingham are 4 that I can remember. None have anything to do with the SEC.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Tha ****? You mean they have the fewest PEOPLE in their respective MARKET areas. By way of fans in seats...the SEC is BY FAR the leader in that category. It isn't even close, bro...

As for ESPN having an interest in the SEC? Well, they have the partnership with the SEC Network, but they also partner with the Longhorn Network and they have the exclusive rights to EVERY OTHER CONFERENCE except the Pac12 (which has a side-deal with Fox). You think they (ESPN) would rather see an SEC team get all the publicity when CBS can pick-off those games? Really? Yeah, CBS has the FIRST CHOICE of games every weekend. ESPN's deal with the SEC (and SEC Network) is 2nd.

Y'all can cry "SEC Bias" all day long, but the reality is that the committee is made up of people like Barry Alvarez and Tom Osborne and others who don't give 2 ***** about the SEC.

Yes, Auburn getting left out in 2004 was interesting...but DID YOU KNOW... the BCS got its start in 1998... So come off the "well the SEC got us the BCS" ****...it simply isn't true.

yes, i mean fewest people. That is all that matters because it means money. There is a reason why the Big Ten, until recently, was the only conference with their own network. They were the only conference with enough TV sets in their footprint to support their own network.

You think the SEC wanted Missouri or Texas A&M because they respected them as competitors? They needed to expand that footprint to get a network.

You guys think all these things are about the game. It's about money. The people at ESPN shill for the SEC for monetary reasons, nothing else. The second it makes more money (or won't hurt their money) for ESPN to bash them, they will.

The SEC did create the initial BCS in 98. As for Auburn creating the BCS, i meant to refer to LSU in 2003. The AP crowned USC the Champions despite LSU winning the BCS Championship game. The SEC used their power to have the BCS formula changed and ultimately removing the possibility that anybody but the BCS Champ game winner could be crowned. Dissent no longer tolerated.

Which brings me back to my original point. When will the system change? When the SEC gets left out.

 

[RollRed]

F

The Committee's first rankings are out.

1. Clemson 6. Baylor
2. LSU 7. Michigan State
3. Ohio State 8. TCU
4. Alabama 9. Iowa
5. Notre Dame 10. Florida

As I said earlier when the SEC folks were crying about tOSU staying atop the AP Polls, tOSU is NOT ranked #1 by the committee. Their squeaker wins have ensured that they start out ranked at #3. Curious how 'Bama sneaks in at #4 and Notre Dame at #5 when there are undefeated Power 5 Conference teams ahead of them.

I do figure though that the SEC supporters won't have a problem with this. And aside from a mild curiosity, it doesn't faze me a bit since I expected a little of the old SEC bias to sneak in.

It's not SEC bias... Alabama having one loss to a decent Ole Miss team combined with the strength of schedule in their victories is more deserving right now than Baylor and TCU beating up on Sister Mary Catherine's School for the Blind every week. Same with ND... One close loss against the current number one team ( Clemson ) holds more water than Baylor beating Lamar by 5 touchdowns or Rice by 9. Same with TCU. The best team they've played so far is Minnesota. Michigan St. has some argument, but there schedule so far ain't all that great either... with their signature win being a fluke. But it's still a win so I can kind of see their *****. I think Iowa has a better argument than Michigan St. does actually.

 

[Omar10213245]

When we had the sham rematch of LSU vs Bama, all fans except SEC fans were upset. ESPN scolded us that we were dumb and had to accept the rematch because they know what is best.

Speak for yourself. I'm a Buckeye fan and I thought the LSU-Alabama championsip was proper, fair and reasonable. There is not a smidge of doubt in my mind that those two teams were absolutely the nation's 2 best collegiate football teams that season.

 

[GRBman]

yes, i mean fewest people. That is all that matters because it means money. There is a reason why the Big Ten, until recently, was the only conference with their own network. They were the only conference with enough TV sets in their footprint to support their own network.

You think the SEC wanted Missouri or Texas A&M because they respected them as competitors? They needed to expand that footprint to get a network.

You guys think all these things are about the game. It's about money. The people at ESPN shill for the SEC for monetary reasons, nothing else. The second it makes more money (or won't hurt their money) for ESPN to bash them, they will.

The SEC did create the initial BCS in 98. As for Auburn creating the BCS, i meant to refer to LSU in 2003. The AP crowned USC the Champions despite LSU winning the BCS Championship game. The SEC used their power to have the BCS formula changed and ultimately removing the possibility that anybody but the BCS Champ game winner could be crowned. Dissent no longer tolerated.

Which brings me back to my original point. When will the system change? When the SEC gets left out.

Wait a minute...you just made my point!

You say that population matters, because of money...then you turn around and say that the SEC is what matters because of money... WHICH IS IT???

On another note, your history is WAY wrong...and your hatred for the SEC is really showing...

You know when the BCS was created? Do you REALLY want to know when the BCS was created? Go back to 1997...Who played in the Rose Bowl in 1997 and who won the National Championship that year? I'll help you out.

The 1997 Rose Bowl was played between the 10-1 Ohio State Buckeyes #4 and the 11-0 Arizona State Sundevils #2. Why does that matter? Well, I'm glad you asked... you see, the Bowl Alliance was created in 1995 to allow the following conferences to break existing traditional bowl tie-ins and have their respective teams play one another for national titles: the SEC, the BigEight, the ACC the Big East and the Southwest Conference. See what's missing here? Yeah, the Pac10 and the Big10. Why are they missing? They didn't WANT to be part of the Bowl Alliance. Why? Because they wanted their precious Rose Bowl matchup and couldn't let go of that tradition. What was the result?

1997 and 1998...

In January of 1997, #2 Arizona State COULD have played #1 Florida State for the National Championship in the Fiesta Bowl (a home game, really) but because the Pac10 was not part of the Bowl Alliance and Arizona State MUST play in the Rose Bowl (on January 1st), the #3 Florida Gators received the matchup against #1 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl on January 2nd. Arizona State (then #2 in all polls) lost to Ohio State, making the Sugar Bowl the default National Championship game (that Florida won)

Let's look at 1998...

the 1997 season came to a close with two clear teams at the top: #1 Michigan (12-0) and #2 Nebraska (13-0 of the newly-formed BigXII). What happened? Glad you asked. Michigan being part of the Big10 was REQUIRED to play in the Rose Bowl. The Wolverines beat #8 Washington State 21-16. Nebraska, being part of the Bowl Alliance faced-off against #3 Tennessee (SEC Champions) and their super-star quarterback Peyton Manning. Nebraska crushed Tennessee 42-17 that night...resulting in a split national championship. Michigan was the AP champion, Nebraska was the Coaches' Poll champion.

You really want to know what caused the BCS to be formed in 1998? The Pac10 and the Big10 being either left out or having to "share" titles... Did the SEC give us the BCS? No, the Big10 and Pac10 did by finally agreeing with THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

 

[GRBman]

Good points that will go unanswered. Most of ESPN is from the North east. Hell they are in Bristol which is pats***land. They aren't SEC homers. Not only that but the committee is made up of almost no SEC people. Alvarez, Osborne, Rice and Willingham are 4 that I can remember. None have anything to do with the SEC.

This is exactly correct, I did some research on the committee members, and guess what, they are actually representative...SHOCKER!!!

Jeff Long, Chair - Vice Chancellor of Athletics, University of Arkansas (Conference ties through career: ACC, B1G, SEC)
Barry Alvarez - Director of Athletics, University of Wisconsin (Conference ties through career: B1G (duh), BigXii and ND)
Lt. Gen. Mike Gould - Former Superintendent of USAFA (Conference ties through career: Mountain West)
Kirby Hocutt - Director of Athletics, Texas Tech University (Confernece Ties: BigXii, ACC, MAC)
Tom Jernstedt - Former NCAA Exec. VP (Confernece Ties: MWC)
Bobby Johnson - Former Head Coach, Vanderbilt University (Conference Ties: SEC, ACC)
Tom Osborne - Former Head Coach and Director of Athletics, University of Nebraska (Conference Ties: Nebraska)
Dan Radakovich - Director of Athletics, Clemson University (Conference Ties: ACC, SEC, WCC)
Condoleezza Rice - Stanford University Professor, Former Stanford Provost and Former US Secretary of State (Conference Ties: Pac12, ND)
Mike Tranghese - Former Commissioner, BigEast Conference (Conference Ties: American?)
Steve Weiberg - Former College Football Reporter, USA Today (Conferenc Ties: None - Missouri Graduate, so SEC)
Tyrone Willingham - Former Head Coach, Washington, Notre Dame & Stanford (Conference Ties: Pac12, ND, ACC, B1G)

So out of the 12 members, 4 have even remote ties to the SEC, 5 ties to the ACC, 4 ties to the B1G, 2 ties to the BigXii, and 3 ties to Notre Dame. Hell, the Mountain West has as many tied-in members as the BigXii...and the ACC has the most...

 

[bermudasteel]

Alabama at the 4 spot is bullshit. Baylor, Michigan State, TCU are deserving. Here's to LSU kicking *** on Saturday!

I hope you're wrong. ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL TIDE ROLLLL!!!

F

It's not SEC bias... Alabama having one loss to a decent Ole Miss team combined with the strength of schedule in their victories is more deserving right now than Baylor and TCU beating up on Sister Mary Catherine's School for the Blind every week. Same with ND... One close loss against the current number one team ( Clemson ) holds more water than Baylor beating Lamar by 5 touchdowns or Rice by 9. Same with TCU. The best team they've played so far is Minnesota. Michigan St. has some argument, but there schedule so far ain't all that great either... with their signature win being a fluke. But it's still a win so I can kind of see their *****. I think Iowa has a better argument than Michigan St. does actually.

Quoted for truth. The SEC West usually has tougher schedules than any of the Big teams up north - I'd like to see how they'd make out playing in our conference for a season or two...just ask Texas A&M now...

Wait a minute...you just made my point!

You say that population matters, because of money...then you turn around and say that the SEC is what matters because of money... WHICH IS IT???

On another note, your history is WAY wrong...and your hatred for the SEC is really showing...

You know when the BCS was created? Do you REALLY want to know when the BCS was created? Go back to 1997...Who played in the Rose Bowl in 1997 and who won the National Championship that year? I'll help you out.

The 1997 Rose Bowl was played between the 10-1 Ohio State Buckeyes #4 and the 11-0 Arizona State Sundevils #2. Why does that matter? Well, I'm glad you asked... you see, the Bowl Alliance was created in 1995 to allow the following conferences to break existing traditional bowl tie-ins and have their respective teams play one another for national titles: the SEC, the BigEight, the ACC the Big East and the Southwest Conference. See what's missing here? Yeah, the Pac10 and the Big10. Why are they missing? They didn't WANT to be part of the Bowl Alliance. Why? Because they wanted their precious Rose Bowl matchup and couldn't let go of that tradition. What was the result?

1997 and 1998...

In January of 1997, #2 Arizona State COULD have played #1 Florida State for the National Championship in the Fiesta Bowl (a home game, really) but because the Pac10 was not part of the Bowl Alliance and Arizona State MUST play in the Rose Bowl (on January 1st), the #3 Florida Gators received the matchup against #1 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl on January 2nd. Arizona State (then #2 in all polls) lost to Ohio State, making the Sugar Bowl the default National Championship game (that Florida won)

Let's look at 1998...

the 1997 season came to a close with two clear teams at the top: #1 Michigan (12-0) and #2 Nebraska (13-0 of the newly-formed BigXII). What happened? Glad you asked. Michigan being part of the Big10 was REQUIRED to play in the Rose Bowl. The Wolverines beat #8 Washington State 21-16. Nebraska, being part of the Bowl Alliance faced-off against #3 Tennessee (SEC Champions) and their super-star quarterback Peyton Manning. Nebraska crushed Tennessee 42-17 that night...resulting in a split national championship. Michigan was the AP champion, Nebraska was the Coaches' Poll champion.

You really want to know what caused the BCS to be formed in 1998? The Pac10 and the Big10 being either left out or having to "share" titles... Did the SEC give us the BCS? No, the Big10 and Pac10 did by finally agreeing with THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

Well written. No need to prove anything to Tape. His hatred for the SEC, and others too, motivates me!!!

 

[bermudasteel]

How about dat Tide????

Roll Tide Roll!!!

 

[Spike]

******* awesome games - Mich St loses to Nebraska , LSU gets gashed by Bama and that crazy ending to Arkansas, Ole Miss

FL wins SEC East in a squeaker but they still have FL State and the SEC playoff to face

 

[Sarge]

Does Alabama deserve to be in the top 4 now? And once again, Ohio state struggles with mediocrity.

 

[bermudasteel]

Does Alabama deserve to be in the top 4 now? And once again, Ohio state struggles with mediocrity.

Can't wait to hear Tape's reasons why Alabama is undeserving...

 

[Steeleers]

Ohio State struggling, I love that argument. Their average score for and against in their nine games is 37 - 15. Every team plays close games, every team has blow outs. The regular season has turned into March Madness: survive and advance.

 

[steel dino]

The way me sees it...

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Baylor
4. Notre Dame
5. Ohio St..

 

[SteelerinMD]

Doesn't OSU have still to play both Michigan and MSU?

ND has Stanford left final week.

Clemson should win out and then face UNC in ACC Championship

Baylor still has TCU and I think Ok State

 

[Sarge]

Ohio State struggling, I love that argument. Their average score for and against in their nine games is 37 - 15. Every team plays close games, every team has blow outs. The regular season has turned into March Madness: survive and advance.

It is not an argument. You know deep down you don't understand why OSU isn't beating up on the weak teams in the Big 10. I know I don't understand it.

 

[RollRed]

It is not an argument. You know deep down you don't understand why OSU isn't beating up on the weak teams in the Big 10. I know I don't understand it.

Maybe the answer isn't that complicated... Maybe they just aren't as good as everybody thought they would be. Just be thankful they've played also-rans every week. There is little doubt in my mind that they would have lost by now had they not had a schedule filled with paddy cakes.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Wait a minute...you just made my point!

You say that population matters, because of money...then you turn around and say that the SEC is what matters because of money... WHICH IS IT???

On another note, your history is WAY wrong...and your hatred for the SEC is really showing...

You know when the BCS was created? Do you REALLY want to know when the BCS was created? Go back to 1997...Who played in the Rose Bowl in 1997 and who won the National Championship that year? I'll help you out.

The 1997 Rose Bowl was played between the 10-1 Ohio State Buckeyes #4 and the 11-0 Arizona State Sundevils #2. Why does that matter? Well, I'm glad you asked... you see, the Bowl Alliance was created in 1995 to allow the following conferences to break existing traditional bowl tie-ins and have their respective teams play one another for national titles: the SEC, the BigEight, the ACC the Big East and the Southwest Conference. See what's missing here? Yeah, the Pac10 and the Big10. Why are they missing? They didn't WANT to be part of the Bowl Alliance. Why? Because they wanted their precious Rose Bowl matchup and couldn't let go of that tradition. What was the result?

1997 and 1998...

In January of 1997, #2 Arizona State COULD have played #1 Florida State for the National Championship in the Fiesta Bowl (a home game, really) but because the Pac10 was not part of the Bowl Alliance and Arizona State MUST play in the Rose Bowl (on January 1st), the #3 Florida Gators received the matchup against #1 Florida State in the Sugar Bowl on January 2nd. Arizona State (then #2 in all polls) lost to Ohio State, making the Sugar Bowl the default National Championship game (that Florida won)

Let's look at 1998...

the 1997 season came to a close with two clear teams at the top: #1 Michigan (12-0) and #2 Nebraska (13-0 of the newly-formed BigXII). What happened? Glad you asked. Michigan being part of the Big10 was REQUIRED to play in the Rose Bowl. The Wolverines beat #8 Washington State 21-16. Nebraska, being part of the Bowl Alliance faced-off against #3 Tennessee (SEC Champions) and their super-star quarterback Peyton Manning. Nebraska crushed Tennessee 42-17 that night...resulting in a split national championship. Michigan was the AP champion, Nebraska was the Coaches' Poll champion.

You really want to know what caused the BCS to be formed in 1998? The Pac10 and the Big10 being either left out or having to "share" titles... Did the SEC give us the BCS? No, the Big10 and Pac10 did by finally agreeing with THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

i have no idea what you are arguing now.

This all started when somebody asked when when it would expand to 8 teams. I half jokingly responded, when the SEC gets left out. You SEC people saw me type the SEC and went into your white hot rages of outrage when i didn't even say anything negative.

It's true, when will it change. When the SEC or Big Ten gets left out. SEC will bring the change faster.

I never said the new playoff panel was biased. That is what you guys injected into this. It was your knee jerk reaction to asume i think that but i don't. This new playoff panel seems to me to have the goal of making sure 4 different conferences are in there.

ESPN and AP voters are biased, but not this new panel.

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Current teams ranked in top 25

SEC 4
Big Ten 6

Just sayin.

This narrative that Bama has played some impossible schedule and Ohio State has played nobody is not really true. Alabama has beat exactly 2 ranked teams. Wisconsin and LSU. They will play #20 Miss State this week, then finish up with a real tough one against Charleston Southern before finishing with an Auburn team that is 5-4 now

Ohio State will finish up back to back with Michigan State and Michigan which will make their schedule pretty close to Alabama's in difficulty.

Also, this notion that Ohio State is barely scraping by each week is crazy. They've had a few close scores but OSU has controlled every game and was never in danger of losing any of them. Anybody who says Ohio State is struggling should instead just say, "I haven't actually seen any of their games"


After this week's games my playoff ranking would be

1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma State
3. Clemson
4. Alabama

Oklahoma State is unbeaten and they dominated TCU. Their defensive performance against a great offense was impressive.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Current teams ranked in top 25

SEC 4
Big Ten 6

Just sayin.

This narrative that Bama has played some impossible schedule and Ohio State has played nobody is not really true. Alabama has beat exactly 2 ranked teams. Wisconsin and LSU. They will play #20 Miss State this week, then finish up with a real tough one against Charleston Southern before finishing with an Auburn team that is 5-4 now

Ohio State will finish up back to back with Michigan State and Michigan which will make their schedule pretty close to Alabama's in difficulty.

Also, this notion that Ohio State is barely scraping by each week is crazy. They've had a few close scores but OSU has controlled every game and was never in danger of losing any of them. Anybody who says Ohio State is struggling should instead just say, "I haven't actually seen any of their games"


After this week's games my playoff ranking would be

1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma State
3. Clemson
4. Alabama

Oklahoma State is unbeaten and they dominated TCU. Their defensive performance against a great offense was impressive.

Ole Miss, Georgia, and A&M were all ranked when they played Alabama. So they played 6 ranked teams at the time of there games. Not a Alabama fan by the way.

 

[SteelBuckeye]

I could care less where the Buckeyes are ranked as long as it is in the top 4. The playoff games are played at "mostly" neutral sites and Buckeye fans show up like Steeler Nation. Just get in and the cream will rise to the top. If the Buckeyes are not the cream of the crop once the playoffs start, it will show. If they are, it will show. Just get in.

 

[GRBman]

i have no idea what you are arguing now.

This all started when somebody asked when when it would expand to 8 teams. I half jokingly responded, when the SEC gets left out. You SEC people saw me type the SEC and went into your white hot rages of outrage when i didn't even say anything negative.

It's true, when will it change. When the SEC or Big Ten gets left out. SEC will bring the change faster.

I never said the new playoff panel was biased. That is what you guys injected into this. It was your knee jerk reaction to asume i think that but i don't. This new playoff panel seems to me to have the goal of making sure 4 different conferences are in there.

ESPN and AP voters are biased, but not this new panel.

Jesus Christ, Tape...you can't go back and say "well, I was half-joking" when we all know your disdain for the SEC.

You said Auburn getting left out led to the BCS...which is 100% untrue. The SEC being left out of the Playoff won't necessarily give the automatic increase to 8-teams. What will make the playoff double in size is when a team (regardless of confernece) is left out that the nation truly believes should have been in there...but there wasn't room.

My best estimate is that when Notre Dame goes 12-1 and gets left out, that's when change will happen. Because A), they have the largest national following and B) they traditionally play a very difficult schedule that is national in scope. So far we only have one year of data to work with, so the NCAA won't make any rash changes yet...but college football being college football...something screwy is going to happen and when it does, they'll make the change.

 

[Coach]

Current teams ranked in top 25

SEC 4
Big Ten 6

Just sayin.

This narrative that Bama has played some impossible schedule and Ohio State has played nobody is not really true. Alabama has beat exactly 2 ranked teams. Wisconsin and LSU. They will play #20 Miss State this week, then finish up with a real tough one against Charleston Southern before finishing with an Auburn team that is 5-4 now

Ohio State will finish up back to back with Michigan State and Michigan which will make their schedule pretty close to Alabama's in difficulty.

Also, this notion that Ohio State is barely scraping by each week is crazy. They've had a few close scores but OSU has controlled every game and was never in danger of losing any of them. Anybody who says Ohio State is struggling should instead just say, "I haven't actually seen any of their games"


After this week's games my playoff ranking would be

1. Ohio State
2. Oklahoma State
3. Clemson
4. Alabama

Oklahoma State is unbeaten and they dominated TCU. Their defensive performance against a great offense was impressive.

I'd move Clemson up to #2. Theri defense is under rated, and games they seem to be on a roll.

OSU has the edge on talent and coaching, but they are not as good as they were last year.

Whomever wins the SEC title game is likley in.

 

[bmoritz]

The way me sees it...

1. Clemson
2. Alabama
3. Baylor
4. Notre Dame
5. Ohio St..

I'm sorry, but to put Ohio St behind Bama and Notre Dame is just flat out ridiculous.

The way I think it should be right now:

1. Clemson
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma State
4. Alabama
5. Baylor
6. Iowa
7. Stanford
8. LSU
9. Notre Dame
10. Michigan State

 

[RollRed]

I'm sorry, but to put Ohio St behind Bama and Notre Dame is just flat out ridiculous.

The way I think it should be right now:

1. Clemson
2. Ohio State
3. Oklahoma State
4. Alabama
5. Baylor
6. Iowa
7. Stanford
8. LSU
9. Notre Dame
10. Michigan State

Yes because struggling to beat Northern Illinois is so much more impressive than losing a very close game to the #1 team in the country. Gimme a ******* break. Every team in this list would be undefeated with Ohio State's schedule so far.