Huskies ranked 5th in initial CFP poll.

[Seahwkgal]

Messed up considering Michigan has only play 1 ranked team. As we have beat 2

Uh....Michigan has beaten 3. Wisconsin, Colorado and Penn State(who they demolished 49-10).

 

[fenderbender123]

I'm with J on this one. There's still a lot of games to be played. It's unlikely that we'll have more than 2 undefeated teams at the end of the year.

 

[ARhawk]

Its crazy how weak the Pac 12 and the Big 12 are this year. Outside of Washington, who lets face has one ok win under their belts, no team from either conference has been impressive. Oklahoma wouldnt finish higher than third in the Pac 12 and probably wouldnt be top 5 in the other conferences. A&M deserves to be above Washington right now, but there is almost no way there are two teams from any conference in the playoffs.

 

[Hawker]

4 ranked teams from the Pac12 - that's about par for the course in recent years. It's just that nobody could have known the 4 would be UW, WSU, Utah, and Colorado, haha, I love it. A nice change of venue from the normal USC/Oregon/Stanford reign we have all come to know as normalcy.

 

[Schadie001]

This is the problem with opinion polls early on in College football. When not a single team has played a game but yet the press and coaches rank them. It may turn out that a bad team is ranked high and a good team not ranked at all for a couple of weeks. But yet these garbage rankings could help certain teams and kill others. There should be no rankings period until the committee comes out with the first rankings for the playoffs. If there continue to be AP/Coaches polls they should play absolutely no part or have any bearing on strength of schedule for the committee rankings. These polls are all based on personal opinion, have tons of conference bias and are not based on factual information. Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.


2016 Schedule
All times MT
REGULAR SEASON
vs RUTG W48-13
vs IDHO W59-14
vs PRST W41-3
@ ARIZ W35-28
vs 7 STAN W44-6
@ ORE W70-21
vs ORST W41-17
@ 17 UTAH W31-24
@ CAL
vs USC
vs ASU
@ 25 WSU


2016 Schedule
All times MT
REGULAR SEASON
vs 16 UCLA W31-24
vs PVAM W67-0
@ AUB W29-16
vs 17 ARK W45-24
@ SC W24-13
vs 9 TENN W45-38
@ 1 ALA L33-14
vs NMSU W52-10
@ MSST
vs MISS
vs UTSA
vs 13 LSU

 

[DTexHawk]

Not surprising. The committee basically considers a loss to Alabama as a win.

No, but they do look at 4 wins over ranked opponents.

by that logic, UW beat a top 10 team in Stanford.
Texas A&M has beat as many teams currently ranked as Washington has. They also played 3 cupcakes non conference, and as far as I'm concerned the UCLA game is basically just making up for the fact that UW has to play 9 conference games compared to 8

Rutgers
Idaho
Portland State

You're correct, they have played 3 cupcakes.

 

[DTexHawk]

Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.

You do realize that SOS changes each week based on results.

 

[JSeahawks]

Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.

You do realize that SOS changes each week based on results.

Not to mention there are about 4 teams that A&M has already beaten that would easily beat anybody UW has played.

 

[fenderbender123]

Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.

You do realize that SOS changes each week based on results.

Not to mention there are about 4 teams that A&M has already beaten that would easily beat anybody UW has played.

I'm not saying this is wrong, but I don't see how you can draw that conclusion so easily. Auburn better than Utah? How do you know that? Auburn has 2 losses and hasn't beat anyone in the top 25 except for LSU, who also has 2 losses and hasn't beat anyone in the top 25 at all.

The best measuring stick we have with A&M , is how they struggled to beat a middling PAC-12 team (UCLA) at home.

 

[JSeahawks]

I went to the Oregon state vs Utah game. They have a good runnin back, other then that they did not look like a good football team. Maybe it was just a bad day, but I wasn't impressed.

 

[fenderbender123]

I went to the Oregon state vs Utah game. They have a good runnin back, other then that they did not look like a good football team. Maybe it was just a bad day, but I wasn't impressed.

Exactly why it's so hard to judge who's better than who in CFB. Match-ups, ups and downs, etc. And who's to say Oregon State is that terrible? They likely have enough talent to where if they decide to get up and play, and the scheme is right, they can hang with anyone in the conference.

 

[davidonmi]

Not surprising. The committee basically considers a loss to Alabama as a win.

No, but they do look at 4 wins over ranked opponents.

by that logic, UW beat a top 10 team in Stanford.
Texas A&M has beat as many teams currently ranked as Washington has. They also played 3 cupcakes non conference, and as far as I'm concerned the UCLA game is basically just making up for the fact that UW has to play 9 conference games compared to 8

Rutgers
Idaho
Portland State

You're correct, they have played 3 cupcakes.

both teams have played 3 cupcakes. that's the point

 

[davidonmi]

Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.

You do realize that SOS changes each week based on results.

Not to mention there are about 4 teams that A&M has already beaten that would easily beat anybody UW has played.

could not disagree more. Auburn, probably although they were baaad early in the year. Arkansas, Tennessee were just overrated SEC teams that were ranked high based on nothing. You think Tennessee would win at Utah? they barely beat App State an Ohio. So the answer is no. Arkansas' only decent wins are a bad tcu team and a last place ole miss teams. yet they are good why? One of those two would maybe be undefeated playing UW's schedule, certainly not both.

Who's the 4th team? South Carolina? give me a break. I usually respect and like the SEC a lot but they are bad this year

 

[IndyHawk]

Look at the two teams schedules, both are riddled with cupcake non-conference play, but because A&M played 4 "ranked" teams early, none of them except Alabama are very good but yet they get credit for having a harder schedule.

You do realize that SOS changes each week based on results.

Not to mention there are about 4 teams that A&M has already beaten that would easily beat anybody UW has played.

could not disagree more. Auburn, probably although they were baaad early in the year. Arkansas, Tennessee were just overrated SEC teams that were ranked high based on nothing. You think Tennessee would win at Utah? they barely beat App State an Ohio. So the answer is no. Arkansas' only decent wins are a bad tcu team and a last place ole miss teams. yet they are good why? One of those two would maybe be undefeated playing UW's schedule, certainly not both.

Who's the 4th team? South Carolina? give me a break. I usually respect and like the SEC a lot but they are bad this year

JSeahawk and anyone else who believes the SEC is so mighty and cannot be beat by UW or such will not listen too well..I have tried and failed ..The SEC plays a bunch of cupcakes Every Year 4 to 5 if you count the crappiest teams in the SEC(pay attention folks)They also get ranked as above said too high prior to the season starting which is complete BS and provides an advantage over teams have to climb up that are not in SEC.You are never going to convince me AM is better than UW but thats ok like JS said we win out- the Conf championships will make it so we get in but I think 2 will get beat before that and it won't be us.The Dawg are still learning how to use everything they have and if they get to that point at the end I believe they can beat anyone without a doubt.The tools are there to do it

 

[HawkGA]

True, A&M and Bama both had cupcakes in their non-conference schedule: UCLA and USC. If you're looking for a cupcake, schedule a PAC-12 team!

 

[JSeahawks]

JSeahawk and anyone else who believes the SEC is so mighty and cannot be beat by UW or such will not listen too well..I have tried and failed ..The SEC plays a bunch of cupcakes Every Year 4 to 5 if you count the crappiest teams in the SEC(pay attention folks)They also get ranked as above said too high prior to the season starting which is complete BS and provides an advantage over teams have to climb up that are not in SEC.You are never going to convince me AM is better than UW but thats ok like JS said we win out- the Conf championships will make it so we get in but I think 2 will get beat before that and it won't be us.The Dawg are still learning how to use everything they have and if they get to that point at the end I believe they can beat anyone without a doubt.The tools are there to do it

It's not about the schedule, or the rankings for me, it's about the eye test. I watch a ton of college football, way more than nfl football.

I would put Alabama in a class of their own head and shoulders above anybody else.

Then I'd go Michigan and Clemson together.

Then a group of UW, A&M, Louiaville, Ohio state and fsu, all I think could beat each other on any given day.

Next group would probably be Wisconsin, auburn, lsu, and Oklahoma.

I'd have to keep going awhile before I got to the next best pac12 team, which I think is USC. Then Colorado. Tgen Utah and wsu. And I'm a pac12 homer. I love the pac12 and can't stand the sec.

 

[IndyHawk]

True, A&M and Bama both had cupcakes in their non-conference schedule: UCLA and USC. If you're looking for a cupcake, schedule a PAC-12 team!

Lets see just Alabama alone..Sept10(Western Kentucky Hilltoppers)Sept24(Kent State Flashes)Nov26(Chattanooga Mocs) that is besides the crappy SEC teams like Kentucky and whoever else is weak.

 

[DTexHawk]

Rutgers
Idaho
Portland State

You're correct, they have played 3 cupcakes.

both teams have played 3 cupcakes. that's the point

And 4 wins over ranked teams vs. 2 wins over ranked teams.
A&M fans are surprised at being 4th, but if they were 5th or 6th, they should still be above UW based on current results.

This will all change over the next 4 weeks, so it really doesn't matter.

 

[justafan]

I agree with J on just about everything he has said about this.i also think its a blessing.

Peterson is probably the happiest coach in football right now.

I hate seeing us schedule 3 patsies.We have no business playing Portland,even if it was scheduled when we were down.I liked James style of scheduling an A,B and C game.I love seeing how we stack up with the better teams around the nation.Especially since the Pac 12 gets a bunch of garbage Bowls after the Rose.

 

[HawkGA]

True, A&M and Bama both had cupcakes in their non-conference schedule: UCLA and USC. If you're looking for a cupcake, schedule a PAC-12 team!

Lets see just Alabama alone..Sept10(Western Kentucky Hilltoppers)Sept24(Kent State Flashes)Nov26(Chattanooga Mocs) that is besides the crappy SEC teams like Kentucky and whoever else is weak.

I'm not sure there are many teams that schedule more than 1 good nonconference game. Not Bama's fault USC sucked.