Are the tides turning for Texas?

[Rocky P]

I'm still holding onto hope!

Edited Tuesday at 08:57 PM by Rocky P

[CJ Vogel]

2 minutes ago, cdibbs said:

I dont recall that being primary criteria for the committee.

There are teams ahead of Texas (Alabama) where that is not the case.

Head to head and strength of schedule are the primary criteria by which they are supposed to grade.

Not the primary criteria, but it's why they are ahead of Texas. Otherwise, what would the reasoning be?

[Stuey22]

Bama schedule change gave me the opposite reaction.  Weaker noncon because they know Texas is out this year.  

[CHorn427]

2 hours ago, Thorn007 said:

no chance. two of ou vandy or bama mia had to lose 

AP poll may put Vandy ahead, but I have a strong feeling we’ll be ahead of Vandy in the CFP poll. I think bama losing alone could have gotten us in.

Then I think they could have went:

1. Ohio State

2. Indy

3. UGA

4. Tech

5. Oregon

6. Ole Miss

7. TAMU

8. Notre Dame

9. OU

10. BYU

11. Texas

12. Miami
 

I think we’ll be sandwiched between Miami and at 13. 

[CHorn427]

1 hour ago, uthorn1374 said:

The A&M win is the biggest win in all of college football this season.  With this golden ticket in hand, the CFP could put us wherever they choose and have the A&M win as justification should there be any backlash.

It’s in the top 5, but not biggest. 
 

1. Ohio State over us

2. Bama over UGA

3. UGA over us

[syracusehorn]

I think “strength of schedule” in the committee’s rubric was a euphemism for conference affiliation. They didn’t want to go down this road, but it was inevitable. 
 

And the consequences are seismic. 

Edited Tuesday at 09:13 PM by syracusehorn
Adding last line.

[alrightalrightalright]

Unfortunately I think this post is accurate in how this will all play out.

Networks will get the viewership/ad revenue back in an expanded playoff when tough OOC games are canceled.

I guess we’re at 13 tonight.

[cdibbs]

19 minutes ago, CJ Vogel said:

Not the primary criteria, but it's why they are ahead of Texas. Otherwise, what would the reasoning be?

I don't disagree with you saying thats the reason. I think thats probably their rationale as well.

I'm just critiquing that rationale as hypocritical given where Alabama is ranked and the supposed "criteria" they set for themselves. 

[tmataya]

3 hours ago, jkates said:

You mentioned Sark's politicking.

You mentioned Bama's switching its future non-con scheduled.

You brought no evidence about how the committee is feeling about either of these things. 

Oh I forgot posts cannot be written without proper evidence. 

[Here for the Wins]

38 minutes ago, CJ Vogel said:

Not the primary criteria, but it's why they are ahead of Texas. Otherwise, what would the reasoning be?

Um, lack of understanding?

[Colby TS]

I know the SEC announced this year that it would move to a nine-game schedule and require one non-conference game against a "quality" Power Four opponent. What’s stopping the SEC from reversing course and eliminating the requirement to schedule at least one Power Four opponent?

Edited Tuesday at 10:24 PM by Colby TS