[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!