Is Colorado The Dark-Horse Team In The College Playoff Rankings?

BOULDER, Colo. (The Sports Xchange) - After the release of the new College Football Playoff rankings on Tuesday, the Colorado Buffaloes have a place in the discussion. Here are the The Sports Xchange's "burning questions" about the rankings.

1. Should Ohio State be ranked higher than Washington?

The top three teams in the rankings remained the same: Alabama ahead of Clemson, then Michigan. No surprises there. Fellow undefeated leviathan Washington finally took its spot in the top four as previous No. 4 Texas A&M lost a shocker to Mississippi State. Ohio State takes over at No. 5 after shellacking then-No. 10 Nebraska 62-3.

Washington is undefeated and the clear class of the Pac-12. Ohio State has run through No. 11 Oklahoma, No. 7 Wisconsin and now Nebraska, and that loss to Penn State looks better now that the Nittany Lions have entered the Top 10. It's totally fine to punish that loss, but is it still a worthy deciding factor by the end of the season?

And yes, both teams "control their own destiny" and can count on a playoff berth if they win out, but the positioning matters -- especially with Alabama locked down at No. 1 until further notice. If Ohio State beats Michigan, it's safe to assume the Wolverines will be out of the Top 4, and if Michigan wins that game this is all moot anyway. So the question becomes, who deserves to avoid the No. 1 overall seed come December?

2. When's the next time someone's falling out of the Top 4?

Order looks like it has been restored to the CFP rankings, what with all four undefeated Power 5 conference leaders atop the list. It's wholly plausible that we get four 13-0 conference champions to go to the playoffs, and while that's nice and tidy, it's also kind of, well, boring.

So when does the chaos ensue next? Anything before Rivalry Week seems unlikely, and maybe we'll have to wait until Championship Week for the real chaos. Will that be all right?

3. Does it really matter where Louisville is ranked?

Rounding out the top six in this week's rankings is Louisville, which demolished Boston College 52-7 on Saturday. Quarterback Lamar Jackson should probably begin writing his Heisman speech soon, if he's not already 200 words into it.

But even with the Cardinals' only loss coming at No. 2 Clemson, they're sorely lacking for a path to a division championship, and their resume's just going to be filled with blowouts over mediocre competition (and one over Florida State, too). Even if chaos ensues above Louisville in the rankings, it's hard to figure out a path for the season that ends with no more than three teams with better championship resumes.

4. What exactly did LSU do to deserve an 11-point drop?

The most bewildering result of this week's polling was LSU dropping from No. 13 to No. 24 after going to No. 1 Alabama and losing by ... all of 10 points, in a game that was scoreless heading into the fourth quarter. That dropped LSU to 5-3 (3-2 SEC), which isn't a pretty record, but that's a stunning response to giving 'Bama one of its toughest tests of the season.

Nebraska got obliterated by Ohio State and fell from No. 10 to No. 19. Texas A&M lost to Mississippi State and only dropped four spots. But LSU gives 'Bama fits and goes from the middle of the Top 25 to behind Western Michigan and Boise State. For a team whose losses are to three Top 10 foes, all essentially road games and by a combined 17 points, a drop to No. 24 is simply inexcusable.

5. Is Colorado the dark-horse team nobody's talking about?

Don't look now, but Colorado's right there at No. 12 and probably feeling pretty good. The Buffaloes are in the driver's seat in the precarious Pac-12 South at 7-2 (5-1), and they can strengthen their resume considerably moving into the last three weeks if they can knock off Arizona, No. 23 Washington State and No. 15 Utah. Those ranked games are even at home in Boulder.

Washington's still the Pac-12's best prospect for a Playoff berth, and deservedly so. But if Colorado finishes 11-2 and 1-0 against those Huskies, especially with losses at Michigan (with an injured quarterback) and at USC, that's an awfully seductive resume for a committee that loves those sorts of details.

Really, if Colorado wins out, it'll be hard to tell CU, "later."

6. Is the committee falling into the same patterns as traditional polls?

One of the easiest -- and least illuminating -- habits we've seen from the AP and Coaches polls is the "win go up, lose go down" model. Teams with similar records get clumped together, strength of schedule only gets factored in after the record, you win you go up, you lose you go down, rinse, repeat.

That's the sort of polling one would expect from media members and, well, whoever the head coaches pick to fill out their ballots for them when the rankings have to be in early the next day. There's little opportunity for people like that to survey the college football landscape as a whole and dive deep into more than a couple games.

The College Football Playoff committee has no such problems, and should be able to evaluate games properly instead of overreacting to them and the records that ensue. Otherwise, what's even the point of waiting until Tuesday night?

7. Does Texas A&M have blackmail on the playoff committee?

As mentioned earlier, Texas A&M falls only four spots to No. 8 despite losing 35-28 to Mississippi State. It's far and away the most damaging loss suffered by a ranked team this week, and yet it's far and away the least penalized; the other four losing ranked teams from last week dropped by an average of 11 spots, if we're assuming all unranked teams are tied for No. 26.

The Aggies' playoff hopes are essentially dust; the loss to Mississippi State was brutal, and losing QB Trevor Knight for the rest of the season means the offense will be hampered significantly down the stretch. This Aggies team isn't the same one that beat Auburn, and that one head-to-head victory, nice as it may be, doesn't merit this refusal to acknowledge that the Aggies' quality as a whole isn't Top 10 material going forward.