OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 250,446
- Like
- 467,808
.
CFP Rankings for Nov 4
- Thread starter OrangeXtreme
- Start date
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 250,446
- Like
- 467,808
1. Ohio State
2. Indiana
3. Texas A&M
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Ole Miss
7. BYU
8. Texas Tech
9. Oregon
10. Notre Dame
11. Texas
12. Oklahoma
13. Utah
14. Virginia
15. Louisville
16. Vanderbilt
17. Georgia Tech
18. Miami
19. USC
20. Iowa
21. Michigan
22. Missouri
23. Washington
24. Pitt
25. Tennessee
2. Indiana
3. Texas A&M
4. Alabama
5. Georgia
6. Ole Miss
7. BYU
8. Texas Tech
9. Oregon
10. Notre Dame
11. Texas
12. Oklahoma
13. Utah
14. Virginia
15. Louisville
16. Vanderbilt
17. Georgia Tech
18. Miami
19. USC
20. Iowa
21. Michigan
22. Missouri
23. Washington
24. Pitt
25. Tennessee
Last edited:
OrangeXtreme
The Mayor of Dewitt
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 250,446
- Like
- 467,808
Archbold44
2nd String
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2025
- Messages
- 719
- Like
- 1,517
The ACC is looking squarely at 1 AQ.
But the ACC ridiculously does not want to have 2 AQs out of 16 teams in a 4-4-2-2-1-3.
If there was a 4-4-2-2-1-3... the current field would be:
4 B1G: Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon, USC
4 SEC: A&M, Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss
2 ACC: Louisville, Virginia
2 B12: Texas Tech, BYU
1 G5: Memphis
3 At-Large: ND (Independent) and Texas/Oklahoma (both SEC).
And there are ways in which the B12 and ACC could end up stealing the spot held by Texas/Oklahoma in that scenario anyway. Utah wins out. If Pitt wins out--beating ND, Ga Tech, and Miami... THAT 10-2 Pitt would easily be in the mix for top 15 to get an at-large without interfering with Louisville/Virginia. If Ga Tech wins out and is 11-1, with a win over Georgia... they could possibly be an at-large candidate. So that is three ACC/B12 teams that could end up with an at-large on top of their 2 AQs. The 2 AQs is not a cap. It is a minimum. The ACC was absurd to reject that.
Instead, the ACC/B12 dug in and agreed to keep the 1 AQ/12 teams. There are 3 clear B1G: Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon. It is hard to see A&M, Georgia, Alabama, and Ole Miss falling out. That is 7/12. G5 = 8. B12 AQ =9. ACC AQ= 10. So now you have two more spots... currently B12 #2 and ND. And you have 2 SEC and a B12 ahead of the second ACC entrant.
Suppose BYU beats Texas Tech and it is BYU (12-0) vs Texas Tech (10-2) in the B12 CCG. That is equivalent to last year's ACC CG where Texas Tech wins and BYU still gets in.
If Louisville 11-1 faces Virginia 11-1 in the CCG... the loser could very well be out at 11-2. Ga Tech could beat Georgia, but not even make the ACC CCG at 11-1. With 12 team playoff... two 11-win ACC teams on the outside. If Pitt goes 10-2 to beat ND, Ga Tech, and MIami... they might open up a spot... but does it go to Pitt or the loser of the ACC CG? Or does it go to Utah who wins out... or Texas/Oklahoma?
Why would the ACC not want a second guaranteed playoff team EVERY year? This year there are 5 in the top 21, but none in the top 14, because of parody. It is going to be like that for the B12/ACC almost all years. For every year they get 3 out of 12, there will be 5 more that each gets 1. Last year was B12, this year will be ACC.
But the ACC ridiculously does not want to have 2 AQs out of 16 teams in a 4-4-2-2-1-3.
If there was a 4-4-2-2-1-3... the current field would be:
4 B1G: Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon, USC
4 SEC: A&M, Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss
2 ACC: Louisville, Virginia
2 B12: Texas Tech, BYU
1 G5: Memphis
3 At-Large: ND (Independent) and Texas/Oklahoma (both SEC).
And there are ways in which the B12 and ACC could end up stealing the spot held by Texas/Oklahoma in that scenario anyway. Utah wins out. If Pitt wins out--beating ND, Ga Tech, and Miami... THAT 10-2 Pitt would easily be in the mix for top 15 to get an at-large without interfering with Louisville/Virginia. If Ga Tech wins out and is 11-1, with a win over Georgia... they could possibly be an at-large candidate. So that is three ACC/B12 teams that could end up with an at-large on top of their 2 AQs. The 2 AQs is not a cap. It is a minimum. The ACC was absurd to reject that.
Instead, the ACC/B12 dug in and agreed to keep the 1 AQ/12 teams. There are 3 clear B1G: Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon. It is hard to see A&M, Georgia, Alabama, and Ole Miss falling out. That is 7/12. G5 = 8. B12 AQ =9. ACC AQ= 10. So now you have two more spots... currently B12 #2 and ND. And you have 2 SEC and a B12 ahead of the second ACC entrant.
Suppose BYU beats Texas Tech and it is BYU (12-0) vs Texas Tech (10-2) in the B12 CCG. That is equivalent to last year's ACC CG where Texas Tech wins and BYU still gets in.
If Louisville 11-1 faces Virginia 11-1 in the CCG... the loser could very well be out at 11-2. Ga Tech could beat Georgia, but not even make the ACC CCG at 11-1. With 12 team playoff... two 11-win ACC teams on the outside. If Pitt goes 10-2 to beat ND, Ga Tech, and MIami... they might open up a spot... but does it go to Pitt or the loser of the ACC CG? Or does it go to Utah who wins out... or Texas/Oklahoma?
Why would the ACC not want a second guaranteed playoff team EVERY year? This year there are 5 in the top 21, but none in the top 14, because of parody. It is going to be like that for the B12/ACC almost all years. For every year they get 3 out of 12, there will be 5 more that each gets 1. Last year was B12, this year will be ACC.
