[Bruce Wang]

Here's my prediction:

1 Ohio State v 4 Texas
2 Bama v 3 Florida State

Final

Ohio State over Bama

[Bruce Wang]

Here's my prediction:

1 Ohio State v 4 Texas
2 Bama v 3 Florida State

Final

Ohio State over Bama

[JohnR34231]

Here's my prediction:

1 Ohio State v 4 Texas
2 Bama v 3 Florida State

Final

Ohio State over Bama

I'd be surprised if Texas makes it. I realize they have just about all their starters back from last year, but they have a new coach to get used to and are coming off a 5-7 year. They also have to go to LaLa land to face Sam Darnold and U$C.

[JohnR34231]

Here's my prediction:

1 Ohio State v 4 Texas
2 Bama v 3 Florida State

Final

Ohio State over Bama

I'd be surprised if Texas makes it. I realize they have just about all their starters back from last year, but they have a new coach to get used to and are coming off a 5-7 year. They also have to go to LaLa land to face Sam Darnold and U$C.

[Bruce Wang]

I'd be surprised if Texas makes it. I realize they have just about all their starters back from last year, but they have a new coach to get used to and are coming off a 5-7 year. They also have to go to LaLa land to face Sam Darnold and U$C.

First it's no fun to go all chalk. Here's my thinking. Too much parity in Pac-12, so none of us make it this year. Tom Herman is one of the best coaches in college football and Texas should be loaded with talent.  Stoops is out and Baylor is a dumpster fire.  At 30-1 in Vegas, I would put money on them to win it all.  If Herman builds a powerhouse in Texas, this is a problem for us as that state has been fertile recruiting grounds and the academics at UT are not shabby.

[Bruce Wang]

I'd be surprised if Texas makes it. I realize they have just about all their starters back from last year, but they have a new coach to get used to and are coming off a 5-7 year. They also have to go to LaLa land to face Sam Darnold and U$C.

First it's no fun to go all chalk. Here's my thinking. Too much parity in Pac-12, so none of us make it this year. Tom Herman is one of the best coaches in college football and Texas should be loaded with talent.  Stoops is out and Baylor is a dumpster fire.  At 30-1 in Vegas, I would put money on them to win it all.  If Herman builds a powerhouse in Texas, this is a problem for us as that state has been fertile recruiting grounds and the academics at UT are not shabby.

[CardinalSagehen]

At 30-1 in Vegas, I would put money on them (Texas) to win it all.

Really? You think that's a better bet than, say, Stanford at 50-1? 

Don't get me wrong - I like that you're coming with a strong and controversial take. 

On your side:
1) The Big 12 sucks, making it theoretically easier to get to the playoff.
2) Tom Herman is a great coach. 

Working against you:
1) They'd still have to beat 2 great Power 5 champions.
2) Tom Hernan is new at UT.
3) They're coming off a 5-7 season and aren't even accustomed to winning. 

Personally, I'd take the second-winningest team in college football this decade, with 67% better odds to boot. 

But CFB champion, while good fodder for discussion boards, is not a bet that I like.  I think Stanford to win the PAC-12 looks good right now at 8-1. 

The last odds that I saw for PAC-12 champ were:
USC 10-11
UW 9-5
STAN 8-1

So the oddsmakers (and/or the rabidly hyped SC fans) are betting both that SC is good and that they have the easiest path to Levi's Stadium through the South Division.  Collectively, according to Vegas, UW + STAN have a lower implied probability of winning the PAC-12 than USC alone. Wait, what?

I look at all 3 teams and think they're way closer than Vegas does, with UW possibly standing out a bit.  I'd bet on STAN because of the odds and hedge with UW.  Basically - I'd be shorting SC, which happily aligns with my personal rooting interests.  ;)

Back to the question at hand, I'd take:
1) Bama
2) FSU
3) Mich
4) UW (but pulling for STAN!)

With 'Bama over Mich in the final. 

Boring, I know!

[CardinalSagehen]

At 30-1 in Vegas, I would put money on them (Texas) to win it all.

Really? You think that's a better bet than, say, Stanford at 50-1? 

Don't get me wrong - I like that you're coming with a strong and controversial take. 

On your side:
1) The Big 12 sucks, making it theoretically easier to get to the playoff.
2) Tom Herman is a great coach. 

Working against you:
1) They'd still have to beat 2 great Power 5 champions.
2) Tom Hernan is new at UT.
3) They're coming off a 5-7 season and aren't even accustomed to winning. 

Personally, I'd take the second-winningest team in college football this decade, with 67% better odds to boot. 

But CFB champion, while good fodder for discussion boards, is not a bet that I like.  I think Stanford to win the PAC-12 looks good right now at 8-1. 

The last odds that I saw for PAC-12 champ were:
USC 10-11
UW 9-5
STAN 8-1

So the oddsmakers (and/or the rabidly hyped SC fans) are betting both that SC is good and that they have the easiest path to Levi's Stadium through the South Division.  Collectively, according to Vegas, UW + STAN have a lower implied probability of winning the PAC-12 than USC alone. Wait, what?

I look at all 3 teams and think they're way closer than Vegas does, with UW possibly standing out a bit.  I'd bet on STAN because of the odds and hedge with UW.  Basically - I'd be shorting SC, which happily aligns with my personal rooting interests.  ;)

Back to the question at hand, I'd take:
1) Bama
2) FSU
3) Mich
4) UW (but pulling for STAN!)

With 'Bama over Mich in the final. 

Boring, I know!

[Phogge]

Stanford, Bama, Penn State, Oklahoma.

[Phogge]

Stanford, Bama, Penn State, Oklahoma.

[CTcard]

2) Tom Herman is a great coach. 

I do wonder to what extent that is true.

He seems energetic and smart. He did a good job at Houston.
I don't see much in the way of negatives in his record, but his record is rather scant.

He got famous by being Meyer's OC for three years. The offense was pretty good two of those three years.

He has been a head coach for two years, both at Group of Five Houston.
Year 1 was excellent, with wins over two Power 5 teams. (13-1)
Year 2 was good but up and down, with great wins over Oklahoma and Louisville, a terrible loss vs SMU, and losses vs Navy, Memphis and his team got crushed by San Diego State after he left. (9-4)

He obviously didn't build the very successful 2015 team, but got them to perform better than the previous year (8-5).

The recruiting services didn't love his recruiting, though his one class fully attributable to him was higher:
2015 Scout #89/247 #83 (first year, only partly responsible)
2016 Scout #36/247 #52
2017 Scount #71/247 #72 (gone by signing day, but presumably still partially responsible)


I don't really see any reason he won't be good, but there isn't enough track record there to know if he can build a program or whether he is one of those very few who can win under most any set of circumstances.

[CTcard]

2) Tom Herman is a great coach. 

I do wonder to what extent that is true.

He seems energetic and smart. He did a good job at Houston.
I don't see much in the way of negatives in his record, but his record is rather scant.

He got famous by being Meyer's OC for three years. The offense was pretty good two of those three years.

He has been a head coach for two years, both at Group of Five Houston.
Year 1 was excellent, with wins over two Power 5 teams. (13-1)
Year 2 was good but up and down, with great wins over Oklahoma and Louisville, a terrible loss vs SMU, and losses vs Navy, Memphis and his team got crushed by San Diego State after he left. (9-4)

He obviously didn't build the very successful 2015 team, but got them to perform better than the previous year (8-5).

The recruiting services didn't love his recruiting, though his one class fully attributable to him was higher:
2015 Scout #89/247 #83 (first year, only partly responsible)
2016 Scout #36/247 #52
2017 Scount #71/247 #72 (gone by signing day, but presumably still partially responsible)


I don't really see any reason he won't be good, but there isn't enough track record there to know if he can build a program or whether he is one of those very few who can win under most any set of circumstances.