2025-2026 College Football Season

[Donoghus]

College football championship is soooo ridiculous. There used to be controversy btwn the undefeated teams who was the champion. Then they tried to eliminate the ambiguity w a playoff format only to have people start complaining about the 5th and 6th ranked team that got snubbed. Now they expand the playoff format so people can moan about 3 loss teams getting snubbed for 7th or 8th spot. Meanwhile, undefeated small conference/ non powerhouse teams still get no respect even if they go undefeated. It is and has been a stupid system.

Perhaps they should have conferences that actually make sense, have meaningful conference championship games and have champions go thru a playoff. Or something similarly logical instead of system based on conjecture and stacked strength of schedule weighting.

Part of the problem you have here now is the side effect of realignment.  You have these super-conferences.  SEC is a 16 team conference so you have this inequalities in the scheduling.  You can play in the same conference as another team but have a totally different mix of opponents so its becoming ridiculous to make apples to apples comparisons between teams that are even in the same conference. 

Texas, and the SEC to a lesser extent, screwed Texas.

[Moranis]

If Texas didn't play Ohio State where do you think they'd be ranked?

If Texas didn't lose to Florida where do you think they'd be ranked?

Playing the hypothetical game here is nonsense.

one has practical implications going forward though in how teams will schedule non-con games.  Miami is also seeing the inconsistency and they actually beat Notre Dame that has the same record as them.

Also, I'll take it from your lack of response and deflection, you think Texas would be ranked 7 or 8 and firmly in the playoff, which proves the point I've been making.  How could they not be ranked there with double digit victories over the 7th and 8th ranked teams especially when 9 has a worse loss.

I said if they were 10-2, they'd be in.  Reading comprehension is key. 

The problem is that they're not 10-2.  They have a third loss.  And it's a bad loss at that.  Are we going to disregard that or the struggles against Mississippi State and Kentucky?  Or getting lit up by Georgia?

People like you putting way too much emphasis on the Ohio State game and not seeing the rest of the picture here.  The committee is already giving them credit for Ohio State.

No I'm giving them credit for beating Texas A&M and Oklahoma by double digits.  I am also acting like they replaced OSU with a lesser opponent they beat and treating them like they are 10-2 because I want games like that in the schedule.  But if there is no real incentive to schedule them, then teams won't schedule them.  So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.  I am not going to disregard the head to head for teams of similar quality.  That should be the most relevant factor.  That is also why Miami should absolutely be ahead of Notre Dame.  ND has 1 top 25 win and lost to Miami. Their schedule may actually be worse than Miami's.  They are both 10-2, how can anyone with a straight face have ND ahead of Miami?

That is the problem with the committee.  Too many inconsistencies. They just change the criteria to fit whatever ranking order they want.  It is basically a sham.

[mobilija]

If Texas didn't play Ohio State where do you think they'd be ranked?

If Texas didn't lose to Florida where do you think they'd be ranked?

Playing the hypothetical game here is nonsense.

one has practical implications going forward though in how teams will schedule non-con games.  Miami is also seeing the inconsistency and they actually beat Notre Dame that has the same record as them.

Also, I'll take it from your lack of response and deflection, you think Texas would be ranked 7 or 8 and firmly in the playoff, which proves the point I've been making.  How could they not be ranked there with double digit victories over the 7th and 8th ranked teams especially when 9 has a worse loss.

I said if they were 10-2, they'd be in.  Reading comprehension is key. 

The problem is that they're not 10-2.  They have a third loss.  And it's a bad loss at that.  Are we going to disregard that or the struggles against Mississippi State and Kentucky?  Or getting lit up by Georgia?

People like you putting way too much emphasis on the Ohio State game and not seeing the rest of the picture here.  The committee is already giving them credit for Ohio State.

No I'm giving them credit for beating Texas A&M and Oklahoma by double digits.  I am also acting like they replaced OSU with a lesser opponent they beat and treating them like they are 10-2 because I want games like that in the schedule.  But if there is no real incentive to schedule them, then teams won't schedule them.  So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.  I am not going to disregard the head to head for teams of similar quality.  That should be the most relevant factor.  That is also why Miami should absolutely be ahead of Notre Dame.  ND has 1 top 25 win and lost to Miami. Their schedule may actually be worse than Miami's.  They are both 10-2, how can anyone with a straight face have ND ahead of Miami?

That is the problem with the committee.  Too many inconsistencies. They just change the criteria to fit whatever ranking order they want. It is basically a sham.

When has it not been a sham? I mean, I?m sure there?s been a year or two that fell perfectly in place and picking the teams was a no-brainer but that?s not the norm.

[Roy H.]

So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.

I'm not sure why you'd do that since it conflicts with reality, but you be you.

[Moranis]

So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.

I'm not sure why you'd do that since it conflicts with reality, but you be you.

they played a gauntlet schedule including scheduling their first game on the road in Columbus. I want teams to schedule those type of games. I think it is important.  It was also a close 14-7 game, it isnt like they got killed. OSU has won every other game by at least 18 and scored at least 24 every game except Texas.  I think OSU beats A&M, OU, etc.as well so because they didn't play that game and while playing a much worse conference schedule while losing by double digits to Texas, I'd put Texas ahead of them.  Texas is better than A&M and Oklahoma.  They proved it on the field and in their overall schedule strength.

[Ilikesports17]

So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.

I'm not sure why you'd do that since it conflicts with reality, but you be you.

they played a gauntlet schedule including scheduling their first game on the road in Columbus. I want teams to schedule those type of games. I think it is important.  It was also a close 14-7 game, it isnt like they got killed. OSU has won every other game by at least 18 and scored at least 24 every game except Texas.  I think OSU beats A&M, OU, etc.as well so because they didn't play that game and while playing a much worse conference schedule while losing by double digits to Texas, I'd put Texas ahead of them.  Texas is better than A&M and Oklahoma.  They proved it on the field and in their overall schedule strength.

Florida loss and getting destroyed by Georgia should keep them out as it does.

[Moranis]

So if I consider Texas 10-2 with 3 top 15 wins and 2 losses, one to a bad team and one a double digit loss to a great team, then I'd rank them ahead of the 2 teams they beat and have them at 7. Even with the horrid loss to Florida.

I'm not sure why you'd do that since it conflicts with reality, but you be you.

they played a gauntlet schedule including scheduling their first game on the road in Columbus. I want teams to schedule those type of games. I think it is important.  It was also a close 14-7 game, it isnt like they got killed. OSU has won every other game by at least 18 and scored at least 24 every game except Texas.  I think OSU beats A&M, OU, etc.as well so because they didn't play that game and while playing a much worse conference schedule while losing by double digits to Texas, I'd put Texas ahead of them.  Texas is better than A&M and Oklahoma.  They proved it on the field and in their overall schedule strength.

Florida loss and getting destroyed by Georgia should keep them out as it does.

I mean Bama lost to Florida State by 14 (you know the same Florida State that Florida beat by 19 last week) and beat lowly Auburn and South Carolina by just 7 (and even needed a bit of luck against Auburn).  Texas beat Texas A&M by 10 and Oklahoma by 17, should those head-to-head games not mean anything?

You see that is the problem with the significantly unbalanced conference schedules.  They give you weird results such that I believe you should give immense credit to a team that goes on the road in week 1 against the defending national champion and then plays that team closer and better than any other team it has played this year (at least to this point). 

I'm an Ohio State fan, so I have no real dog in this fight, I just don't want to see those big non-con games go away.  I think that would be bad for the sport.