‘He’s meant everything to our group:’ What’s next for Joe Pavelski after 18 seasons in the NHL?
-
Ryan S. Clark, NHL reporter
Every offseason, Dallas Stars general manager Jim Nill will chat with the organization’s younger players about a number of items. Part of that discussion includes what it means to be successful with details such as winning puck battles.
That’s when Nill begins asking a set of questions.
Are you stronger than Joe Pavelski? Are you faster than Joe Pavelski? Can you compete as hard as Joe Pavelski?
“They’ll say, ‘Yep’ and I’ll ask, ‘So why is it that he wins the battles and you don’t?'” Nill said. “I said, ‘That’s what you gotta do.’ You’ve got to find your way. Joe has found a way to do it. What it is? I don’t know. … He’s figured out a way to do it and that’s what he can pass on to other kids.”
Stories such as these can be found in great supply throughout the Stars organization whether it be from Nill, others in the front office, the coaching staff or players. Talking about Pavelski can make people feel many things ranging from reverence and respect to getting emotional because that’s what he means to so many.
This is why everybody wants to see Pavelski play at least one more season. This is also why nobody wants to see him leave the Stars no matter what he decides to do next, should he call time on a career that could see him in the Hockey Hall of Fame.
A 2-1 loss Sunday to the Edmonton Oilers in Game 6 of the Western Conference finals ended the Stars’ season in the conference final for a consecutive campaign.
It’s also a defeat that may have brought Pavelski’s career to an end.
Pavelski, who turns 40 in July, had five shots on goal while logging 16:50 of ice time in what might have been his last game. For his career, he has scored 476 goals and notched 1,068 points while appearing in 1,332 career regular-season games. In the postseason, he has had 74 goals and 143 points in 200 playoff games throughout his career.
That career has allowed him to win everything but a Stanley Cup, and there’s a realistic chance it could remain that way. Between his age and the fact he’s a pending unrestricted free agent who has signed rolling one-year deals, there is a scenario in which Pavelski’s Game 6 on Sunday is his final one.
As of now, Pavelski may be the only person who truly knows what his next step will be going forward. Does he play at least one more year? Does he retire? And if he does choose to retire, what will be his next step, and could it involve joining the Stars’ front office in some role?
“I think he could probably pick whatever he wants [with his future] whether that’s GM, front office management, coaching. He’s a smart cat,” Stars captain Jamie Benn said. “He loves the game of hockey and knows a lot about it. I think the options are endless for him with whatever he decides to do.”
Go back to Game 6 of last year’s Western Conference semifinal against the Seattle Kraken. It’s not so much about what Pavelski did during the game. If anything, it’s more about what he did afterward.
The Stars had a chance to close out the series in six games in Seattle only to lose 6-3 with the Kraken forcing a Game 7 back in Dallas.
Stars assistant general manager Mark Janko was on his way to his hotel room when the double doors of the elevator parted and he saw Pavelski. It was 11:30 p.m., and Janko was curious why the Stars’ veteran forward was still awake when he and his teammates had the sort of long day they likely wanted to forget.
Pavelski told Janko that he’d just spent 30 minutes talking to Jason Robertson inside his hotel room. He wanted to check in on Robertson and make sure he was OK. Pavelski wanted to be a sounding board who could provide Robertson a sense of reassurance after a difficult loss in a series that would see Robertson go goalless.
Hearing this led to Janko inviting Pavelski back to his hotel room. That’s when Janko mentioned that he heard Stars defenseman Esa Lindell was having trouble with the loss. Pavelski texted Lindell to find out his room number and then left Janko’s room before spending another 30 minutes talking to a teammate.
“That’s the thing. He’s such a good leader,” Robertson said. “He cares about our players. He cares about everyone and wants to see us succeed. It definitely shows his character and his leadership. That’s something that will definitely follow him throughout his whole life.”
What Pavelski did for Lindell and Robertson is one of the many examples that’s often used to detail why he has been crucial from a player development standpoint.
Trace the steps of those who become an NHL GM. They follow one of two paths: Either they were involved with player development or some form of player procurement.
Benn, Nill, Wyatt Johnston and Ryan Suter have all seen the side of Pavelski that could allow him to make the transition into player development. There are some within the organization who have semi-joked that Pavelski is already doing player development while he’s still playing.
Pavelski was homegrown talent in San Jose, who developed into a captain who became one of the franchise’s all-time greats, and helped them challenge for the Stanley Cup for several seasons.
What he learned from older players in San Jose became part of the teachings he has passed on to a Stars franchise that is using homegrown talent to build a consistent Stanley Cup contender.
In Dallas, Pavelski seamlessly fit into a leadership group that already had an established captain in Benn. Pavelski made tipping pucks a group activity at practice, with the way he gets younger players involved. He has used the lessons learned over an 18-year career to share insights with a new generation.
“I can ask him anything, and he’s so good,” Johnston said. “He takes his time and shares thoughts if I want to ask him about something. He’ll also come up to me and tell me some stuff or talk to me if he sees something. It’s just natural. I try to do my best and ask him a lot of questions and learn from him and see his point of view with things.”
Pavelski has been an instrumental figure for a franchise that feels it’s on the cusp of winning a Stanley Cup. It’s what also makes the discourse within the Stars’ dressing room about Pavelski’s future one that draws several opinions.
Suter agrees that Pavelski has a strong love for the game that could help others. He said that Pavelski could become an NHL GM if he wanted. But Suter also sees a world in which his longtime childhood friend opts to spend more time coaching his children.
Pavelski and Suter’s children are the same age and play youth hockey together. And as Suter shared, Pavelski is actively involved with details such as doing video for the team.
“He can still play, right?” Suter said. “If he’s not playing I think then he’s going to be a hell of a youth hockey coach.”
Suter’s statement about Pavelski still being able to play, along with what Nill said about how he can still win puck battles, is what makes talking about his future complex.
Pavelski was the NHL’s second-oldest player during the 2023-24 season, but he has found a way to increase his offensive production as he gets older. From his rookie season at 22 to his age-29 season, Pavelski scored 415 points in 561 games for an average of 0.74 points per game. Since he turned 30, he has scored 653 points in 771 games, an average of 0.85 points per game, while remaining a nightly fixture in the Stars’ lineup.
“I think his hockey sense is through the roof. I think his hockey sense, positioning, the way he plays, the people he plays with, the positions he’s put in — it all benefits him,” Suter said of why Pavelski has found success at an advanced age. “I think he’s had a hell of a career to say the least. I think his style, he’s never been a good skater and he’ll be the first to tell you that. But he thinks the game. He’s ahead of it. He knows where the puck is going. He competes. He’s a bastard.”
Benn pointed out that any player who wants to join a front office once they’ve retired has certain personality traits. Namely, they’re someone who took hockey extremely seriously in one manner or another.
He said Pavelski has that sort of personality with the way he approaches his job. Talking about Pavelski made Benn recall the five seasons he spent with Jason Spezza in the years before the latter retired to work in a front office. Benn said Spezza was one of those players who took hockey extremely seriously, to the point that it only made sense he would join a front office when his career ended.
Spezza retired after the 2021-22 season. His first job was as the special assistant to the GM with the Toronto Maple Leafs, and he’s currently the assistant GM for the Pittsburgh Penguins.
“We all love the game, but there are guys who go above and beyond,” Benn said. “It shows. You don’t play 19-plus years in this league and work your tail off and do all that if you don’t love the game. [Spezza] was an obvious one, and I think Joe can do whatever he wants.”
Benn, who has been the Stars’ captain since the 2013-14 season, said the love Pavelski has for hockey comes through with how he talks to teammates. He said Pavelski has shown a willingness to talk to players about anything, even if it means they’re going to have a difficult discussion.
“You know in the end, it’s going to make that player better, and it’s going to be what’s best for the team,” Benn said.
Johnston and Logan Stankoven are the most prominent examples of the development work Pavelski has done. They are among the group of young players who have spent countless hours doing on- and off-ice work with Pavelski as part of establishing their foundation as NHL players.
“There should be 32 teams trying to get someone like him to be working with them,” Johnston said. “It sure would be great if Dallas would be one. I can see him doing so many different roles in the front office.”
Pavelski spoke with ESPN during the second round about why he makes time to speak with his teammates, if he has any interest in joining a front office, and how long he would keep playing.
Those conversations, much like the ones he had with Robertson and Lindell, are about what it means to be a good teammate. Pavelski said being a responsible teammate is something that everyone in the Stars’ dressing room takes seriously, adding the appreciation he has for former Sharks teammates Patrick Marleau and Joe Thornton and how they handled those moments.
“You learn a little bit of it but at the end of the day, it’s an experience that you’ve gone through yourself,” Pavelski said. “If it helps someone, great. If it doesn’t, so be it. But I’ve just always tried to be around.”
Pavelski said he loves being around the game, but if he were to join an organization in a front office role, it wouldn’t be right away.
Given his love for the game, exactly how much longer does Pavelski see himself remaining in the NHL?
“We’ll see,” Pavelski said. “We’re having a good time with this run. We’re in a good spot. There’s a lot of work to be done. So, we’re enjoying it and I’m just kind of living in the moment right now, but I’m not too worried about it.”
Nill, who also spoke to ESPN when the Stars were in the second round, said that Pavelski didn’t want his future to be a distraction during the playoffs, with Nill echoing that same sentiment.
“He’s going to know,” Nill said. “There comes a time when your body, your mind — you just say it’s enough. Right now, we’re focused on doing well in the playoffs and him being successful so we haven’t really brought it up. Over the last three years, we’ve just kinda talked about, year by year, we’ll just see where things go.”
Nill said that he doesn’t know when he would talk to Pavelski about potentially joining the Stars’ front office. But he did say that it’s a conversation they would have whenever Pavelski was ready to have that discussion.
If Pavelski decides to return to the ice, he’d be coming back to a team that would have 13 players under contract for next season. There are some, such as Thomas Harley, who remain under team control as they are pending restricted free agents, while others such as Matt Duchene and Chris Tanev are pending unrestricted free agents who could depart in free agency.
But if this was it for Pavelski, the sights and sounds from his final game could prove rather memorable.
He went through the handshake line after the Stars were eliminated by the Edmonton Oilers in six games. In the line, he had an embrace with Oilers rookie forward Dylan Holloway, who played two seasons at the University of Wisconsin as Pavelski did. He had a brief chat with Stuart Skinner before having a long hug with former teammate Mattias Janmark. His longest moment was saved for when he met Corey Perry. Once divisional foes for several years, they became teammates for a season in Dallas. Having that many shared moments led to them spending 10 or so seconds together talking and hugging before Pavelski would eventually skate back to the bench.
Perhaps the most emotional moments came when the Stars spoke with the media. Johnston answered questions with the subdued tone that comes with being eliminated from the playoffs. But when the discussion shifted to Pavelski, his voice started to become shaky.
“I can’t thank him and his family enough for what they’ve done for me,” said Johnston, who lived with Pavelski’s family the past two seasons.
Benn appeared to have been teary-eyed when he was asked about Pavelski, while Tyler Seguin cracked a smile before asking, “Can we not ask about Joe?”
“He’s meant everything to our group,” Seguin said. “On the ice, off the ice. All our golf games, he’s improved all of those. Just an amazing person to have in here.”
The last person to comment on Pavelski was Stars coach Peter DeBoer. They were together for four-plus seasons in San Jose where they made it to one Stanley Cup Final and two Western Conference finals. Whenever DeBoer has talked about what made him come to Dallas, he has openly shared how Pavelski influenced his decision, which allowed them to spend two more years together.
“I don’t know if it’ll be Joe’s last game or not, but it was an absolute privilege of my coaching career to coach a guy like that,” DeBoer said. “Our young players are all better for having been around a guy like that.”
-
David Hale
The first College Football Playoff rankings came out five weeks ago. They looked a lot like tonight’s rankings.
We’ve had precious little movement at the top, with a few teams jockeying up or down a slot, but effectively no seismic shifts in the landscape. BYU and Texas are the only two teams that were projected in the field in the committee’s first ranking that aren’t now — and they’re just barely on the outside with reasonable arguments for inclusion.
Teams ranked in the top 18 by the committee this year are a combined 55-9, with six of those losses coming to other teams ranked in the top 18. All three outliers are courtesy of — you guessed it — the ACC (Louisville to Cal, Virginia to Wake and Georgia Tech to Pitt).
That’s a massive anomaly. Last year, top-18 teams at this point had lost 19 games, including 14 to teams outside their own grouping. Top-10 teams are 33-4 this year. In the first 11 years of the playoff, top-10 teams had lost an average of nine games by this point in the season.
The two words that best describe this year’s playoff push are “status quo.”
That, of course, has been bad news for all the teams on the outside looking in — from those with valid cases such as Miami, BYU and Vanderbilt, to underdogs such as USC, Utah or Arizona that might’ve had a shot in a more chaotic year.
But the real loser in this copy and paste rankings season is all the fans who just want to see things get weird. It’s a sad state of affairs when we’re left to rely on MACtion and the ACC to do all the heavy lifting when it comes to college football drama. The power players need to step up — or, perhaps, ratchet down — their game to add a bit more drama.
The good news is, the committee’s ad hoc reasoning, mushmouthed explanations and mind-boggling about-faces still leave plenty to argue about, even if the big picture hasn’t changed all that much.
Here’s this week’s biggest slights, snubs and shenanigans.
It’s not entirely clear how this committee values wins. For the past month, the priority has certainly appeared to be about which team has the better losses (unless, of course, you’re Alabama).
That seems a foolish way to prioritize playoff teams, since the goal of the playoff isn’t to lose to good teams but to win games.
Does Texas have a bad loss? Yes. A 29-21 defeat to woeful Florida — even if the Gators also played Georgia and Ole Miss close and just walloped a team that beat Alabama head-to-head — is problematic.
But look who Texas has beaten: No. 7 Texas A&M by 10, No. 8 Oklahoma by 17 and No. 14 Vandy by three (in a game they led by 24 in the fourth quarter). That’s the résumé of a team capable of winning a national championship — even if the Horns were also capable of losing to a second-rate SEC team.
Are we trying to find teams with the most upside or give participation trophies to the ones which have not lost an ugly one? (Except, again, Alabama.)
And it’s not as if the committee believes an extra loss is disqualifying. Oklahoma, Alabama, Notre Dame and Miami all have two losses and are ranked ahead of one-loss BYU (more on that in a moment), so what’s the harm of moving a three-loss Texas ahead of a two-loss team that has accomplished less?
This all comes back to the most frequent and justified criticism of the committee: The same rules aren’t applied evenly. In some cases, record matters. In some cases, best wins matter. In some cases, better losses matter. The standard varies based on the team being considered. But if the committee is going to err in favor of any team, it should probably do so for one that’s proved — not once, not twice, but three times — that it can beat an elite opponent.
Oh, and moving Texas up ahead of, say, Notre Dame would also have the added bonus of allowing the committee to sidestep another tricky situation. Which leads us to…
We’re putting these two teams together because we’ve already lamented the committee’s utterly disingenuous evaluation of them repeatedly, so it feels redundant to keep going down the same rabbit hole. But, for the sake of two programs being astonishingly misevaluated, let’s do one more round.
For Miami, the logic is obvious: The Canes beat Notre Dame head-to-head.
But let’s keep going. Miami’s two losses — SMU and Louisville — would rank as the fourth- and fifth-toughest games on Notre Dame’s schedule, had the Irish played them. Instead, Notre Dame has cruised through an essentially listless slate. Six of Notre Dame’s 10 wins came against teams that beat zero or one other Power 4 opponent. Stanford — seriously, Stanford! — is Notre Dame’s fourth-best win (by record). Yes, Notre Dame played well enough in losses to two very good teams, but one of those teams has the same record and is somehow ranked lower! Even if this is strictly about the “eye test,” there’s little argument for ignoring the head-to-head outcome. Notre Dame’s strength of record is 13th. Miami’s is 14th. Notre Dame’s game control is fifth. Miami’s is sixth. If all else is the same, how is head-to-head not the deciding factor?
Yet, here’s a little more salt in the wound for the Canes: Had Florida State finished 6-2 instead of 2-6 in ACC play, Miami would’ve won the (fifth) tiebreaker for a spot in the ACC title game and could’ve locked up its place in the playoff by simply beating Virginia. Instead, the Canes will sit at home and watch and hope and, at this point, probably get left out. Chess, not checkers, by rival FSU.
As for BYU, the committee’s desire to overlook the Cougars makes no sense. Let’s take a look at a blind résumé, shall we? (Note: Best wins and composite top 40 based on an average of SP+, FPI and Sagarin ratings.)
Team A: No. 6 strength of record, No. 14 game control, best win vs. No. 11, next vs. No. 28, loss to No. 5, four wins vs. composite top 40, five wins vs. teams that finished 7-5 or better
Team B: No. 7 strength of record, No. 10 game control, best win vs. No. 13, next vs. No. 27, loss to No. 7, three wins vs. composite top-40, two wins vs. teams that finished 7-5 or better
Now, just based on that information, Team A would seem the obvious choice. Now what if I told you Team B just lost its head coach, too?
That’s right, Team A is BYU and Team B is Ole Miss. Every bit of data here suggests the Cougars are, at worst, on even footing with the Rebels or ahead, and yet the committee has Ole Miss ranked five spots higher.
This is, arguably, the second year in a row in which BYU was clearly the most overlooked team in the country.
A week ago, Notre Dame was ranked one spot ahead of Alabama.
Then on Saturday, the Irish beat 4-8 Stanford by 29 (in a game they at one point led 42-3), while Alabama beat 5-7 Auburn by seven (in a game the Tigers had a chance to tie before fumbling in Tide territory late).
The committee looked at those two results and said, “You know what, we like what we saw from the Tide! Move ’em up!”
What could possibly be the logic for shifting opinions on these two teams? The only other team that jumped another winning team was Texas, and the Longhorns beat the No. 3 team in the country emphatically, not a second-tier team that fired its head coach a month ago.
Oh, and hasn’t the committee made it pretty clear losses are supposed to matter? Well, Notre Dame has two losses to teams ranked in the top 12. Alabama got beat by a Florida State team that finished 5-7.
Even by the eye test, this makes little sense. Notre Dame has proved to be one of the most complete, dominant teams in the country, with a secondary that’s near impossible to throw on, a rookie quarterback who has been nearly flawless and a running back who might well be the best player in the country. Alabama, on the other hand, has a one-note offense that can’t run the football.
We’re not believers in using advanced metrics as a ranking of accomplishment, but if this is simply a “who’s better” debate…
-
SP+ ranks Notre Dame fifth and Alabama 12th.
-
FPI ranks Notre Dame third and Alabama sixth.
-
Sagarin ranks Notre Dame second and Alabama seventh.
-
FEI ranks Notre Dame fourth and Alabama ninth.
So, again, we ask: Why would the committee possibly make this change?
We’d wager you know the answer. That sticky Canes vs. Irish head-to-head debate is a real headache for the committee. But if Notre Dame’s currently the last team in and something unexpected happens this weekend (hello, BYU over Texas Tech), then the committee can do as it did in 2014 and wash its hands of a tough choice and keep both Notre Dame and Miami out.
(It’s also interesting that a seven-point win over a team with a losing record is enough to jump Notre Dame, but a 31-point win over a ranked Pitt did nothing for Miami’s relative placement with the Irish despite — and we’re not sure anyone has mentioned this yet — a head-to-head win!)
But, speaking of Alabama…
4. Championship game participants
Step into the time machine with us for a moment, all the way back to championship week 2024. Here’s the state of play: Alabama, at 9-3, is ranked No. 11, the first team out of the playoff and also out of the SEC title game. Still, the Tide and the SEC hope there’s a pathway to salvation because SMU — 11-1 and ranked eighth — still has a game to play against Clemson in the ACC championship. If the Mustangs were to lose, couldn’t the committee then justify slotting SMU behind Alabama based on another data point, even though the Tide were simply sitting at home watching the action?
This was the case being made throughout the run up to the ACC championship last season. SMU, which should’ve been celebrating a miraculously successful first season in the Power 4, spent hours upon hours defending itself against criticism that it didn’t belong in the same conversation with big, bad Bama. Rhett Lashlee hinted he thought the committee’s vote was rigged, SMU players lamented their status on the chopping block despite a ranking that should’ve put them safely in the playoff field, and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey made the rounds arguing that Alabama’s (and Ole Miss’ and South Carolina’s) strength of schedule ought to put them ahead of SMU (and others).
OK, back to the present day. Here we are with Alabama sitting perilously on the dividing line between in the field and out — a week ago, it would have been the last team in, but of course the committee had other ideas this time around — with a game to play against Georgia in the SEC championship. An ACC team (Miami) sits just a tick behind the Tide in the rankings, but it will be off this week.
So, what happens if Alabama loses?
The comparison to last year’s SMU isn’t even a particularly fair one. The Mustangs were at No. 8 before the ACC title game. Alabama is at No. 9 (and probably should be a spot or two lower). SMU’s game against Clemson was new territory. A loss to Georgia will actually undermine Alabama’s best argument for inclusion — the three-point win in Athens in September. And while SMU did make the playoff field last year, a last-second loss on a 56-yard field goal still dropped the Mustangs from No. 8 to No. 10 in the rankings.
Play this scenario out now: Alabama, ranked at No. 9, plays a team that currently counts as the Tide’s best win. Imagine if Georgia wins the rematch and does so convincingly. The committee docked SMU two spots for a last-second loss, so surely it will do at least that much to Alabama for a more convincing defeat, right? And here’s the other thing: Even with the ACC title game loss last year, SMU was 11-2 — one less loss than Alabama had. A Tide loss in the SEC title game will be defeat No. 3 — one more than Notre Dame or Miami or (presumably) BYU.
It’s hard not to see a conspiracy here given the committee’s inexplicable flip-flop between Alabama and Notre Dame. It’s hard not to see brand bias in how the Tide’s championship week narrative diverges from SMU’s a year ago. It’s not at all hard to envision a scenario where Alabama loses to Georgia, gets in as the last team anyway, and it’s all explained away as a completely reasonable decision.
Well, the committee finally weighed in on more than one team outside the Power 4 — mostly because it was just impossible to find enough Power 4 teams worth ranking — and the news isn’t good for JMU. With the committee deciding already that North Texas is the higher ranked team, the Dukes’ only hope for the playoff would seem to be a Duke win in the ACC title game.
But what exactly has the committee seen to warrant that decision? Check out the numbers.
Best win (by average FPI, SP+ and Sagarin ranking)
JMU: No. 54 Old Dominion
UNT: No. 62 Washington State
Next best
JMU: No. 62 Washington State
UNT: No. 68 Navy
Loss
JMU: No. 29 Louisville
UNT: No. 24 USF
Wins vs. bowl-eligible
JMU: six
UNT: five
Strength of record
JMU: 18th
UNT: 22nd
FPI
JMU: 28th
UNT: 37th
There are certainly some check marks in North Texas’ favor, including a more impressive win over common opponent Washington State and a slightly better SP+ ranking, but on the whole, James Madison has had the tougher path here. That can change should UNT beat Tulane, but the committee should’ve waited for that to happen. Instead, it has made it clear JMU isn’t sniffing the playoff unless it comes at the expense of the ACC.
Also angry this week: Vanderbilt Commodores (10-2, No. 14); The ACC leadership who voted on its tiebreaker policies; Manny Diaz, who has to try to make a coherent argument for his five-loss Duke Blue Devils getting in ahead of a one-loss JMU; Every 8-4 team with a markedly better résumé than 9-3 Houston, which isn’t ranked this week; and Lane Kiffin’s yoga instructor and Juice Kiffin’s dog walker.
Welcome to the party, James Madison.
With the inclusion of JMU at No. 25 in the selection committee’s penultimate ranking — its first appearance all season — the possibility of the ACC being excluded from the playoff entirely just got real. Five-loss Duke is nowhere to be found in the ranking.
If Duke beats Virginia in the ACC championship game, it’s not guaranteed a spot in the 12-team field. It could open the door for two Group of 5 conference champions to compete for a national title, and if the playoff were today, it would be Tulane out of the American and JMU from the Sun Belt. The ACC’s best team, Miami, is still on the outside.
At No. 12, the Hurricanes still need some help, but Alabama increased its chances of earning a spot as the SEC runner-up with a small promotion to No. 9. The conference championship games can still alter the picture, but hope on the bubble is dwindling.
Bubble Watch accounts for what we have learned from the committee so far — and historical knowledge of what it means for teams clinging to hope. Teams with Would be in status below are looking good after the committee’s fifth ranking. For each Power 4 conference, we’ve also listed Still in the mix. Teams that are Out will have to wait until next year.
The conferences below are listed in order of the number of bids they would receive, ranked from the most to least, based on the selection committee’s latest ranking.
Jump to a conference:
ACC | Big 12 | Big Ten
SEC | Independent | Group of 5
Bracket
SEC
Would be in: Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Texas A&M. Right now, the Crimson Tide are the last SEC at-large team in the field. Alabama will face Georgia in the SEC championship game, but the committee could have a difficult decision if Alabama loses and finishes as a three-loss runner-up. The Tide would have defeated Georgia during the regular season but lost to the Bulldogs in the championship game. Even in moving up a spot to No. 9 this week — ahead of Notre Dame — it still seems as if they have a little more margin for error, but how the SEC title game unfolds could matter. And how far Alabama drops could determine if the SEC gets four or five teams in the field. Alabama could finish as the committee’s highest-ranked three-loss team and still be excluded from the playoff to make room for a conference champion — as they were last year.
A Georgia win should lock up a first-round bye and a top-four finish for the Bulldogs, while a loss should still put them in position to host a first-round game. Georgia beat Ole Miss, so it would be surprising to see the Bulldogs drop below the Rebels with a loss, even though the Bulldogs would have one more defeat. With a 35-10 drubbing of Texas also on its résumé, Georgia would still have a strong enough case to finish as the committee’s top two-loss team.
At No. 6, the selection committee moved the Rebels up one spot, so clearly the departure of coach Lane Kiffin to LSU didn’t hurt Ole Miss or its chances of hosting a first-round home game. The bigger reasoning was a promotion after winning the Egg Bowl combined with Texas A&M losing to Texas.
Still in the mix: Texas. The Longhorns moved up to No. 13, but the win against Texas A&M wasn’t enough to put them into the field after the fifth ranking. Texas is stuck behind Miami in part because of its loss to Florida, which Miami beat. Even if BYU and Alabama were knocked out with title game losses, that still probably won’t be enough for Texas to get into the field because the bracket has to make room for conference champions.
Out: Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Big Ten
Would be in: Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon. Both Indiana and Ohio State are CFP locks — even if they lose in the conference title game — and the runner-up will still have a strong case for a top-four finish and a first-round bye. The loser’s only loss will be to a top-two team, but it could fall behind Georgia in the top four if the Bulldogs win the SEC, and/or Texas Tech if it wins the Big 12.
The Ducks punctuated their résumé with a respectable win at Washington and should be secure in their playoff position, probably hosting a first-round game. Oregon received a small boost to No. 5 after Texas A&M lost to Texas.
Still in the mix: None.
Out: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Washington, Wisconsin
Big 12
Would be in: Texas Tech. The Red Raiders will play BYU in the Big 12 title game and have a great case to be in the playoff regardless of the outcome. It’s highly unlikely the selection committee would drop the Red Raiders out of the field as a two-loss Big 12 runner-up — especially considering they would have a regular-season win against the eventual conference champion. It’s also possible Texas Tech earns a first-round bye as a top-four seed if the Red Raiders win the Big 12. The committee moved them into the top four Tuesday night following Texas A&M’s loss during Rivalry Week.
Still in the mix: BYU. If BYU doesn’t win the Big 12, it’s unlikely to earn an at-large bid as the conference runner-up because the Cougars are already on the bubble and would be eliminated during the seeding process if the playoff were today. It’s not impossible, though. If Alabama finishes as a three-loss SEC runner-up, it could at least open the door for debate. BYU would have lost to Texas Tech twice, and Alabama would have defeated Georgia, the eventual SEC champ once — and it was on the road. If BYU wins the Big 12, it’s the ideal scenario for the conference because it would have two teams in the playoff.
Out: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Cincinnati, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, UCF, Utah, West Virginia
ACC
Would be in: TBD. The ACC championship game will feature Virginia and Duke, and if five-loss Duke wins, it’s possible the ACC is excluded from the playoff since Duke is not part of the CFP rankings. If Virginia wins, it will represent the league in the playoff, as the two-loss Cavaliers are ranked in the top 20. And no, Miami did not play Duke or Virginia during the regular season. Duke lost to Tulane, which is the top Group of 5 playoff contender and will reach the playoff if it wins the American. Duke also lost to UConn. And it has already lost to Virginia 34-17 on Nov. 15.
Still in the mix: Miami. The Canes are still the committee’s highest-ranked ACC team, but they would be excluded if the playoff were today to make room for a conference champion. That means the ACC winner could knock the league’s best team out of the playoff. The committee isn’t ignoring Miami’s head-to-head win against Notre Dame, but it also isn’t comparing the Canes only to the Irish. Miami also needs to earn an edge against BYU — which the committee has deemed better than Miami to this point. Miami inched closer to Notre Dame because Bama moved up Tuesday, but with neither team playing in a conference championship game, would the committee flip them on Selection Day with a BYU loss?
Out: Boston College, Cal, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, North Carolina, NC State, Pitt, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Independent
Would be in: Notre Dame. The Irish have done everything right since their 0-2 start, running the table and doing it with consistent dominance regardless of opponent. At No.10, Notre Dame is in a precarious position. If BYU wins the Big 12 and enters the field, that could bump out the Irish. If BYU wins the Big 12, both BYU and Texas Tech are highly likely to make the playoff, which means someone currently in the top 10 would have to be excluded.
Group of 5
Would be in: Tulane. If the Green Wave win the American, they will represent the Group of 5 in the playoff. Tulane is currently the highest ranked Group of 5 team, but if North Texas beats Tulane on Friday, the Mean Green would be the most likely team to reach the CFP, given the overall strength of the American Conference this season.
Still in the mix: James Madison, North Texas. JMU (11-1) has clinched the East Division and a spot in the Sun Belt Conference championship game, where it will face Troy (8-4) on Friday. North Texas will face Tulane in the American, and if it wins, it’s more likely to represent the Group of 5 in the playoff than JMU because of its schedule strength. JMU could still be considered, though, if Duke wins the ACC, giving the Group of 5 two playoff teams in the 12-team field. With JMU earning a spot in the top 25 this week, the situation became more probable.
Bracket
Based on the committee’s fifth ranking, the seeding would be:
First-round byes
No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
No. 2 Indiana
No. 3 Georgia (SEC champ)
No. 4 Texas Tech (Big 12 champ)
First-round games
On campus, Dec. 19 and 20
No. 12 Tulane (American champ) at No. 5 Oregon
No. 11 Virginia (ACC champ) at No. 6 Ole Miss
No. 10 Notre Dame at No. 7 Texas A&M
No. 9 Alabama at No. 8 Oklahoma
Quarterfinal games
At the Goodyear Cotton Bowl, Capital One Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl Presented by Prudential and Allstate Sugar Bowl on Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.
No. 12 Tulane/No. 5 Oregon winner vs. No. 4 Texas Tech
No. 11 Virginia/No. 6 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 3 Georgia
No. 10 Notre Dame/No. 7 Texas A&M winner vs. No. 2 Indiana
No. 9 Alabama/No. 8 Oklahoma winner vs. No. 1 Ohio State
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024