Projecting — and debating — the Olympic hockey rosters for Team USA and Canada
More Videos
Published
2 months agoon
By
admin
-
Greg Wyshynski
-
Rachel Kryshak
Close
Rachel Kryshak
ESPN
- Rachel Kryshak is a professional data consultant specializing in data communication and modelling. She’s worked in the NHL and consulted for professional teams across North American and Europe. She hosts the Staff & Graph Podcast and discusses sports from a data-driven perspective.
Sep 11, 2025, 07:00 AM ET
USA vs. Canada isn’t only hockey’s greatest rivalry, but one of the most competitive and nastiest in all of sports.
It’s a rivalry that permeates down into the world junior level and bubbles up to the NHL like lava. Please recall the 4 Nations Face-Off last February, where the first meeting between the nations started with three fights in nine seconds and the second meeting ended with a dramatic overtime win for Canada to claim the championship.
The next battle could come at the 2026 Winter Olympics in Italy. The Americans and Canadians are in different groups, but as the reigning hockey superpowers in the tournament it’s not too farfetched that the path to gold will run through that rivalry.
Canada has had the better of the Olympics matchups since the NHL started sending its players in 1998, holding a 4-1 series lead. That includes two wins in gold medal games, in 2002 and 2010.
As 4 Nations showed, the gap between these teams has closed. The Americans’ talent pool has deepened with elite skill players and especially goaltending. Selecting the right roster for the 2026 could be the difference between a medal ceremony or elimination.
In the spirit of this storied rivalry, we had a Canadian — ESPN writer Rachel Kryshak — select her ideal Team Canada roster, and get roasted by an American, ESPN senior writer Greg Wyshynski. Then, Wyshynski selected his ideal Team USA roster, which Kryshak sliced apart.
Team Canada
Greg Wyshynski: A few changes I’d make to this roster immediately. Obviously, Sidney Crosby should be kept home, due to his advanced age. I have to imagine that Nathan MacKinnon, Cale Makar and especially Connor McDavid would like to have some additional time to rest before the Stanley Cup playoffs — the real prize in 2026, obviously, given the diminished prestige in winning Olympic gold due to lack of Russian participation.
Rachel Kryshak: You know, I can definitely see where you are coming from. On that note, given the lack of playoff success, I would have to believe that Auston Matthews would love some additional rest, and Quinn Hughes will likely need all his energy to carry the Canucks to the playoffs.
GW: We already tried that whole “beat Canada without Quinn Hughes and 70% of Auston Matthews” thing. It sucked.
Anyway, if Canada does in fact have the full complement of players you’ve listed here, I’m intrigued by a couple of the alternations you’ve made to the roster from that 4 Nations win. Specifically, leaving Mark Stone and Brad Marchand off the Olympic roster. Do you hate Selke Trophy-worthy wingers, or is this just straight-up ageism?
RK: Well, it’s not that I dislike Selke wingers; Mitch Marner and all his clutch play have made the roster. It is more related to the fact that Stone’s speed concerns me, as does his injury history. As for Marchand, he’s likely to be a middle-six player on Florida. Canada has “pesty” players that can play both special teams, and it isn’t lacking in the leadership qualities that those two bring.
By the time February rolls around, I believe Celebrini will have surpassed both of them. Suzuki and Jarvis are both elite, two-way play drivers that are already in the same category, if not better.
GW: I want to get to the literal children you’ve decided are worthy of the Canadian national team, but wanted to pause on Suzuki. The Canadiens center seems like he’s now ascended to the throne of “is this person elite or nah?” debates. Why him over other candidates?
RK: The Nick Suzuki debates pretty much power the entire province of Quebec with the amount of energy expended on them. Canada has a habit of taking “role players” instead of the best players. It has paid dearly for it at junior levels. I opted for Suzuki over Cirelli because Suzuki is the better offensive player with elite penalty-killing abilities. If Canada is going to win gold, it is going to need more than its nuclear weapons to score, and Suzuki is a reliable option to play that role.
Cirelli was my last cut from the forward group, although I think it is likely he makes the team. As for Marchand, Stone and Travis Konecny, I will always opt for the center over the wingers because of the versatility and faceoff factor.
GW: Speaking of divisive centers, you have 20-year-old Connor Bedard on the roster — with the caveat that you’ll swap in Robert Thomas of the St. Louis Blues if Bedard stumbles in Year 3. Macklin Celebrini, 19, I can understand, as he’s been knighted by Sidney Crosby as a potential Team Canada teammate. What is it about Bedard, at this point, that would make him Olympic-worthy, or what would you need to see from him?
RK: Bedard is the only player to whom I have afforded this latitude, because given the rareness of his talents, I had to allow for the distinct possibility that he pops in his third NHL season. But in order to get the nod, Bedard would have to be a point-per-game (or better) player against difficult matchups to start the season, and consistently drive offense.
His shot is world-class. Given the strength of the goaltending in the Olympics, having a guy with a laser beam in your back pocket could be very useful. The thing with Bedard is that he must play in the top six if he’s going to make the team. Unless it takes him as a spare, which I could see because of his game-breaking ability.
If Bedard doesn’t pop, Robert Thomas’ ability to distribute the puck, create off the rush and cycle and read defensive coverage are deserving of a spot. If we’re being blunt, I think it is conceivable that Canada takes neither of them and that spot goes to someone like Cirelli or Stone — similar to how I can see the USA leaving Clayton Keller or Tage Thompson off for a more “reliable” player.
GW: I appreciate you adding Evan Bouchard to your defense corps, in case the Americans need a giveaway or defensive lapse to help them in a critical time against Canada.
RK: Believe me, I hemmed and hawed about that selection more than most given his “controller unplugged” moments at critical junctures. The conclusion I came to was this: When Canada lost Cale Makar at 4 Nations, it really would have benefited from having Bouchard to step in. I think this is a scenario where he is the spare who steps in if Doughty falters. The veteran’s age and fall-off deeply concern me, but it is a near foregone conclusion that he will make the team.
The reality is, Bouchard makes fewer mistakes than Doughty, Weegar and Colton Parayko, but his mistakes are the ones that often end up on the highlight reels. You need difference-makers, and he is the second-best puck mover, shooter and offensive creator that Canada has on the blue line. Very much like taking Adam Fox despite his warts; the good far outweighs the bad.
GW: I’ll be honest. I was really looking forward to having this debate in the months leading up to 4 Nations because I was literally going to pop champagne bottles when we turned our attention to Canada’s goaltending. Not just because the Americans have an advantage here both in high-end talent and overall depth, but because I really believed Canada didn’t have a championship solution between the pipes, the end result of a yearslong evaporation of the nation’s prospect pool that’s led to a national crisis of conscience.
So, like he did to the rest of the Americans in the 4 Nations final, Jordan Binnington has ruined my party. His tournament was classic Binner: Unimpressive traditional stats, much better underlying numbers like high-danger save percentage, and in the end he played like a goaltending god when it mattered most.
Do you think he replicates that in Italy, or is there a chance goaltending is still Canada’s only true vulnerability (besides the complacency that comes from a decades-long world hockey domination)?
RK: Good news for you, my friend! We are most certainly going to be having Canadian goaltending debates. The three goaltenders based on performance should be Binnington (he could have an .870 save percentage and the team would take him), Thompson and Blackwood. There is no scenario where Adin Hill or Samuel Montembeault are ahead of either of the latter two when they are at their best.
It is hard to ignore Binnington’s record in winner-take-all games. However, goaltending is still a vulnerability for Canada because the reality is, you don’t know which version is playing that night. Is it “4 Nations OT” Binnington, or is it “the dude squirting water at Nazem Kadri” Binnington?
Regardless, Canada doesn’t have a single goalie better than the four best American goalies, so it would do well to simply take the players who are performing the best. If that is Hill or Darcy Kuemper or whomever else, Canada needs to take the goaltenders who are performing the best and hope that carries over in Milan.
GW: On a scale of one to 10, how confident are you that Canada can win its fourth gold medal in men’s hockey when NHL players have participated? Keeping in mind that the Americans have been building toward this moment for 46 years and to paraphrase the great Herb Brooks, “Your time? Your time is done.”
RK: Probably a seven. Certainly, it’s the lowest it has been in a very long time.
The reality is, many nations have caught and perhaps surpassed Canada in their grassroots development of players, which has led to an influx of truly elite talent. Canada’s elite are better than everyone else’s elite (McDavid, Mackinnon, Crosby, Makar), but the skill depth gap has closed. The goaltending is going to be the deciding factor, because everyone has elite skating talent, but can they get the timely save.
Regardless, I’d rather have those four on my team than face them, because the prospect of that is terrifying.
Team USA
RK: Now, on to the Americans, who I believe are Canada’s biggest threat to its hockey supremacy.
GW: I’m rolling my eyes, but also, thank you.
RK: They have elite talent up front and on the back end, but most importantly, a level of goaltending that is only rivaled by Russia, which is ineligible for this competition. Given the 4 Nations, I see you have made some changes to the roster. What do you think guys like Keller and Thompson will bring to the roster that had been lacking?
GW: While the U.S. had a great showing at 4 Nations — the ultimate result notwithstanding — I think the roster’s flaws were pretty apparent at the forward position. It’s been a long-standing USA Hockey tradition to overlook players with incredible offensive skill because their overall games aren’t as well-rounded as some more experienced players who may no longer be able to hit their offensive heights.
In the case of 4 Nations, that was clearly Chris Kreider and Brock Nelson, whom I’ve dropped from the Olympic roster. Tage Thompson is not going to make anyone forget Patrice Bergeron defensively, but leaving his size and skill off this roster was a self-defeating decision for the Americans. I’m a huge Keller fan, especially as he’s aged into his prime. I realize he’s a replacement-level player defensively, but I love the totality of his game and skill set.
RK: I love both of those additions. But the one I really liked was Matthew Knies. He isn’t as pesky as a Tkachuk brother, but he’s big, physical and he’s got more scoring than Brady. If selected, what are you hoping he provides in a middle-six player, assuming he doesn’t play with his usual linemate in Auston Matthews?
GW: Thank you for the Knies love. I’ve seen some projecting Alex Tuch to make this team, and I’m thinking Knies is a better version of that kind of winger. Like you said, ultimately his best place in the lineup is next to Matthews, much like how you’ve added Zach Hyman to team Canada as the modern day Chris Kunitz to McDavid’s Crosby.
Ultimately I’d like him there, but it’s hard not to have Boldy as RW1 considering how he tore up 4 Nations. So I see Knies as a “break glass in case Matthews needs a boost” option for now.
RK: Speaking of where he plays … Jack Hughes. He struggled in 4 Nations. How do you see him being used to mask some of his defensive deficiencies while taking advantage of his offensive brilliance? Could a move to the wing be what’s best? He’s the one player I have concerns about as it pertains to being bounced off the puck in certain areas of the ice.
GW: Look, the way Jack Hughes played at 4 Nations presents a real conundrum for the Americans. You could argue that Hughes and Adam Fox — whom I’m sure we’ll get to — were the two most disappointing players on that team. Hughes looked completely overmatched in that tournament, but I’d argue it’s because they asked him to shift to the wing — so on top of playing in his first best-on-best tournament, they had him playing out of position where I think his talents were wasted.
Yes, he’s undersized, but his playmaking and underrated defensive acumen are designed for the middle. So I’m hoping that having him in between J.T. Miller and Thompson is like putting delicately sliced gourmet meats in between two blocks of sourdough.
RK: I think there are dangers to that line simply because when Miller is on, he is a fantastic defensive player. But similar to Bouchard, there are plenty of “controller unplugged” moments, which you cannot have next to Hughes. From a size perspective, flanking Hughes with those two makes sense because it will open space for him.
Speaking of dangers, it is time to talk about Adam Fox! I am not nearly as down on him as others were, but he obviously needs to be much better in the Olympics. Pairing him with Jaccob Slavin makes a lot of sense to me. He won’t get top power-play minutes, so what is the best way to get the most out of him?
GW: I legitimately wonder if Fox would even be in the conversation for this team if Mike Sullivan weren’t his coach and Chris Drury weren’t his GM, given their roles with Team USA and the Rangers. That’s how bad the vibes were for Fox after 4 Nations and specifically the championship game — internally on Team USA, he was given the majority of the blame on McDavid’s OT goal.
RK: He took a ton of heat for the championship goal, but Jack Hughes was in a bad spot and Matthews got caught in no-man’s-land. Similar to Bouchard with Makar, I think USA has to take him as a Quinn Hughes insurance policy, as well as his ability to drive play.
GW: Like you indicated, Fox offers a lot at 5-on-5 in both ends of the ice that I’m willing to run it back with him in the hopes that that Slavin can paper over any defensive lapses he might have, and that he has a better handle on the pace of best-on-best play after getting a taste of best-on-best play.
RK: I noticed the lack of John Carlson on the roster. What put the others above him and what would have to happen for him to make the team?
GW: What, are you going to ask where Ryan Suter is next? Carlson had a very solid season for the Capitals, but he turns 36 next January and I just think there are younger, better, fresher options on the back end than Carlson. USA Hockey would seem to agree, as Carlson wasn’t even invited to its Olympic development camp. (Maybe he and Lane Hutson have a text chain about that.)
With a healthy Quinn Hughes back on the blue line, I think this D-corps is pretty cemented. The only change I made was swapping out Noah Hanifin for Seth Jones, because playing a prominent secondary role for the Stanley Cup champion Florida Panthers team made it safe to call Seth Jones good at hockey again.
RK: Oh, I am so happy you brought up Lane Hutson! The entire province of Quebec is doing a lot of yelling — and given the historic season Hutson just had, it’s hard to blame them. I think there is a legitimate possibility he plays his way onto the team, especially if injuries crop up. What would you need to see out of him to make you say, “That guy needs to be on the team,” even if it is as a spare?
GW: I realize it’s the height of hypocrisy to say “young, better, fresher options” and then be like “except for you, reigning NHL rookie of the year.”
But like I said, given the way the defense played at 4 Nations while gaining experience in a best-on-best tournament, I’m comfortable with this top eight. Where I’ll agree with my French-Canadian friends is that Hutson should have absolutely been invited to Olympic orientation camp with an eye towards the 2030 team. It’s hard to imagine, given his trajectory, that he won’t be a part of it.
RK: Fair enough, but I think that, similar to Bedard, we should leave the door open that Hutson plays himself onto the team.
The real strength of the American team is the goaltending. Connor Hellebuyck and Jake Oettinger feel like foregone conclusions, and for good reason. Hellebuyck has faltered in big moments for Winnipeg and for the USA — the anti-Binnington, as one X user put it. That’s slightly unfair, in my opinion, but at what point should Oettinger get a serious look for the crunch time starts?
GW: I’d push back on Hellebuyck having faltered in the 4 Nations tournament for the U.S. But I’ll concede that the guy considered the best in the world has failed to level up in the Stanley Cup playoffs or at 4 Nations in the same way that someone like Binnington has. Which is to say that I am a little concerned about whatever malfunction Hellebuyck has in big tournament moments.
The U.S. goaltending depth does afford it the luxury to consider other options. What’s interesting about Oettinger is that he’s sort of dined out on his reputation as a “win the series on his own” goalie based on his first couple of postseasons, but doesn’t always fulfill that promise.
RK: Hellebuyck was good in 4 Nations, but he has failed to outplay his opponent in the biggest moments, something you sort of expect out of a perennial Vezina Trophy contender. Oettinger has the aura of elevating his play in the playoffs, as does Thatcher Demko — who is noticeably absent from the roster.
Swayman was poor last season and Demko was injured. Is there a scenario where Demko makes it ahead of Swayman if he can stay healthy and play to his standard? He was the lone reason Vancouver went on their bubble playoff run, and that type of lightning in a bottle could be the difference between gold and silver.
GW: I’ll evoke the Mark Stone Protocol for Demko: Great player, dodgy health, and hence an unreliable option on a chart this deep. When it comes to Swayman, there’s no doubt his contract squabble with the Bruins knocked his 2024-25 season off its axis.
And if we’re going to ding Hellebuyck for his lack of execution in high-stress situations, then we need to acknowledge that Swayman pitched a 24-save shutout in the IIHF world championships to win the U.S. its first gold medal in that tournament since 1960 — with the Olympic management team watching keenly.
RK: The Stone Protocol it shall be. Swayman’s performance to win the Worlds for the first time in nearly a century had to earn him some significant brownie points with the USA brass.
GW: I will say that my choice for third-string goalie was Dustin Wolf of the Calgary Flames for the longest time, if only for experience ahead of 2030. But I couldn’t ignore Swayman being a bit more battle-tested.
RK: How are you feeling about the USA heading into Milan? The biggest difference will be the IIHF officiating standard, meaning the Tkachuk and Bennett nonsense will not fly.
GW: Wait, what do you mean? The Tkachuks can’t just go around beating up Canadians?
RK: Contrary to what we’ve seen in the NHL playoffs: No, they cannot! Just like Sam Bennett can’t elbow opponents in the head. That sort of behavior is generally frowned upon by the IIHF.
GW: Rachel, that’s like 90% of our game plan. What if the Canadian they’re targeting has an incredibly punchable face? Is there a carve-out for that in the IIHF rules?
RK: If that’s the case, I’m putting Tom Wilson on my team, because clearly we’re going to need in-game policemen. I guess the other question is: Which American is Binnington going to fight?
GW: Whoever he wants if it means he’s out of the gold medal game.
I’m glad you brought up Matthew Tkachuk, though. As confident as I am that the American men are going to win their first gold medal since the Miracle on Ice — and make no mistake, I am quite confident about this — the 4 Nations Face-Off revealed there are some foundations this team can’t afford to have cracked.
What does that 4 Nations championship game look like if a broken Matthew Tkachuk, an absent Quinn Hughes and a diminished Auston Matthews were all healthy and contributing? I’ve been saying for years that the Americans finally have the elite talent to equal that of Canada, but it doesn’t really matter if that talent is at like 30% effectiveness, you know?
RK: I think it likely looks different in terms of game play. Hughes is the most obvious addition, considering his impact on the game. But Tkachuk’s health is one question mark, and his effectiveness will be another. Both he and Brady are at their peak when they are “pesty,” and the IIHF does not tolerate that, so I think that will limit their play style. Matthews and Hughes are major components who could tip the scales.
The Americans have the elite talent to compete with Canada, but Canada’s best players are still slightly better. I’m curious to see how both teams adjust to the stricter standard and which game breakers make the difference. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see another overtime thriller.
GW: I was there in Vancouver in 2010 and in Boston in 2025. As confident as I am, I’m not sure my body can take another overtime championship game against Canada.
You may like
Sports
Week 12 Anger Index: Why a No. 15 ranking isn’t good enough for Miami
Published
2 hours agoon
November 12, 2025By
admin

-

David HaleNov 11, 2025, 07:53 PM ET
Close- College football reporter.
- Joined ESPN in 2012.
- Graduate of the University of Delaware.
Anger is a natural and often entirely reasonable emotion, but it can also be a little like misplacing your car keys. There’s frustration, outrage, exasperation and a string of epithets that would make Pat Narduzzi blush, and then just when the emotions have reached their apex, you realize the keys have been in your coat pocket the whole time.
So it was with last week’s Anger Index.
BYU was right to be upset that, in spite of a spotless record, it was slotted behind three one-loss teams.
The ACC was perfectly justified in its outrage, without a single team in the top 13, despite Louisville and Virginia profiling far better than two-loss teams ranked higher.
Memphis certainly had an ax to grind, relegated to the committee equivalent of an “others receiving votes” nod, when a three-loss team from across the state cracked the top 25.
So, of course, we yelled and screamed and cursed the committee, and by the end of Week 11, we imagine those same committee members were sitting in an oversized chair, stroking a cat and smugly cackling like Bond villains.
But this is a lesson worth learning — not for the outraged and aggrieved, but for the committee.
Because the committee is made up of some particularly wise college football minds, those folks can watch a team’s performance and create a trend line. They can see Virginia squeaking by in close games or compare the recruiting pedigree of BYU’s roster with teams from the SEC and make an entirely reasonable prediction that, on a long enough timeline, those teams’ flaws will become evident and the results will prove the committee right.
But it’s a little like watching the Kentucky Derby, seeing the leader fading down the stretch and a favorite charging from the back. Can we predict the outcome with some level of certainty? Sure. But you don’t call the race then and there.
The committee’s job is to survey the evidence at hand and capture that specific moment in time, not guess about the future — educated as those guesses might be.
So, yes, BYU and Louisville and Virginia and Memphis had reasons to be outraged, even if the committee’s predictions ultimately came true, just as this week’s entrants on the Anger Index are entirely justified in their frustrations, regardless of what happens from here.

![]()
In Bill Connelly’s SP+ ranking this week, Georgia is one spot ahead of Alabama. But the two teams have the same record, and the Tide hold a head-to-head advantage, so the committee — rightfully — has Alabama ranked higher.
SP+ actually has Oklahoma (ninth) ahead of Texas (14th) by a sizable margin, and the Sooners’ overall profile — with wins vs. Michigan and Tennessee — is better, too. But again, the two schools have the same record, and Texas holds a head-to-head win, so the committee ranked the Horns higher.
Or consider Louisville and Virginia. The Cardinals (26th) are a full 15 spots ahead of Virginia in SP+ and 14 spots higher in strength of record. And no matter that Virginia’s head-to-head win over the Cardinals came in overtime and required two defensive touchdowns, the committee appreciates what happened on the field, and it has the Cavaliers ranked higher.
Similarly, the committee has USC ahead of Michigan, BYU ahead of Utah and Georgia ahead of Ole Miss, partially because the metrics bear that out, but also because, in each case, the higher-ranked team has the head-to-head win.
Please explain why Miami is different.
The Hurricanes’ metrics are solid. They’re 13th in SP+, 13th in strength of record, have four wins vs. FPI top-35 teams (i.e. the top 25% of FBS) — more than anyone but Texas A&M and Alabama — and, of course, have the same record as Notre Dame and hold the head-to-head victory over the Irish.
The committee, however, has Notre Dame ranked ninth and Miami 15th.
It’s nonsensical on its face, and worse when you consider the committee also has Texas (with a worse loss than either of Miami’s), Utah (just one FPI top-35 win) and Vanderbilt (four spots behind Miami in FPI) all ranked higher, too.
Again, it’s certainly possible the Canes lose this week to NC State — a team that has already taken down Virginia and Georgia Tech — but that’s not the point. The committee isn’t supposed to guess what will happen next. It’s supposed to rank teams based on what they’ve done so far, and there is absolutely no metric that warrants Miami’s placement behind so many two-loss teams with clearly inferior résumés.
![]()
It might seem like the difference between being No. 5 and No. 6 in the committee’s rankings isn’t much, but consider this: Ohio State and Indiana will likely play in the Big Ten title game. Some combination of Texas A&M, Georgia and Alabama will play in the SEC title game. Some member of the committee’s current top four is quite likely to slip from that top perch and trade a first-round bye for a first-round home game, and someone else will get bumped up into the top tier and enjoy a week off when the playoff begins.
Texas Tech should have the inside track on that bye, but the Red Raiders don’t, because Georgia still rates ahead of them.
Why?
Texas Tech has played two top-13 teams now and beaten them by a combined score of 63-17. Georgia’s two best wins (vs. No. 7 Ole Miss and No. 23 Tennessee) came by a combined 11 points.
Texas Tech has a loss to Arizona State that looks bad on paper, but the Sun Devils actually profile well, and they won that game with a healthy Sam Leavitt. Surely that’s a better loss than Alabama’s defeat at the hands of slumping Florida State, right?
Yes, who you play matters, and in this case, Alabama (No. 4 SoR) and Georgia (No. 5) have had the tougher road. But how you play has to matter, too, and the Red Raiders have been far more dominant. Texas Tech has the second-best average in-game win probability in the country, trailing only Ohio State. Alabama’s is 17th. Georgia’s is 36th. Yes, credit to the Tide and Dawgs for winning close games. But more credit to Texas Tech for avoiding close games altogether.
![]()
As a general rule, if Lane Kiffin is pointing out a flaw in the committee’s logic, then the committee ought to take note. It’s not worth the retribution he’ll eventually deal out with a mercilessly hilarious tweet.
Lane Kiffin makes the case for Texas A&M to be #1
“Texas A&M being No. 3, what more do you want them to do to be 1?”
“They went up to Notre Dame and won.”
“What good did that do if that’s not rewarded?
“They have the highest metrics of everybody and not No. 1.” pic.twitter.com/NJ0m7qWVrw
— SEC Mike (@MichaelWBratton) November 10, 2025
And, of course, Kiffin is right. What else does Texas A&M need to do to be ranked No. 1? The Aggies have the No. 1 strength of record, a supposedly critical stat for the committee. A&M has five wins vs. FPI top-35 teams; Ohio State has four. A&M’s best win is vs. No. 9 Notre Dame. Ohio State’s is vs. No. 10 Texas. A&M has played the 15th-toughest schedule so far (per ESPN’s metrics), while Ohio State has played the 41st.
Ultimately, the difference between being the top seed and the No. 3 seed is minimal, and given that Ohio State and Indiana will likely face off in a Big Ten title game, odds are the Aggies will enter the postseason at No. 2. No harm done, really. But it’s the principle of the thing. If A&M has the best résumé, it should be No. 1, because no one wants to spend a whole offseason hearing Greg Sankey whine about the SEC getting treated unfairly.
![]()
Last week, we thought the Cougars were being underappreciated. Then they went out and lost to Texas Tech and its ferocious defense and tumbled all the way from No. 7 to No. 12 — or, from in the playoff to out of it.
But does it make sense to divvy out that much punishment for a single loss on the road to one of the best teams in the country? To drop BYU behind three two-loss teams, each of which has lost to a team far worse than the Red Raiders?
Of course it doesn’t, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. How about this comparison?
Team A: No. 7 strength of record, No. 24 strength of schedule, two wins vs. SP+ top-40 teams by an average of four points, one loss to a top-10 team by 10 at home
Team B: No. 8 strength of record, No. 28 strength of schedule, three wins vs. SP+ top-40 teams by an average of eight points, one loss to a top-10 team by 22 on the road
You’ve probably guessed that Team B is BYU, and the No. 8 strength of record metric alone should make the committee’s ranking seem ludicrous.
But Team A? That’s Oregon, which picked up its best win of the season in Week 11 in a game it nearly lost to Iowa.
BYU and Oregon have the same record. BYU has a win over the committee’s No. 13 team, better than Oregon’s win over No. 21 Iowa (which is unranked in the AP poll, by the way). They both have understandable losses, but BYU’s was on the road.
And the committee sees BYU as four spots behind Oregon.
Make it make sense.
![]()
A quick blind résumé:
Team A: SP+ No. 12, best win vs. committee’s No. 18 team, losses to SP+ Nos. 6 and 23 by a combined 12 points, 17.8 points-per-game average margin of victory vs. FBS opponents, who are a combined 38-29 in other FBS games.
Team B: SP+ No. 14, best win vs. committee’s No. 11 team, losses to SP+ Nos. 1 and 48 by a combined 15 points, 13.1 points-per-game average margin of victory vs. FBS opponents, who are a combined 33-34 in other FBS games.
There’s not a ton of margin between the two, but you’d probably give a slight edge to Team A, right? Aside from Team B having a small advantage in its best win, Team A has the better overall résumé.
Well, Team A is the Trojans.
Team B? That’d be Texas, which the committee has seven spots higher.
As we showed with Miami’s spot, there’s certainly room for a lot of debate around the two-loss teams, but given that Notre Dame and Texas are currently on the right side of the playoff dividing line, and Miami and USC (and others) are not, it’s a debate that requires a ton of scrutiny. But somehow, USC seems like the least scrutinized of any of the two-loss teams — a team that has been largely overlooked in spite of some real success.
And it certainly feels like the committee has looked at Miami’s loss to SMU and USC’s loss to Illinois and deemed those too egregious to warrant further consideration, while completely ignoring the fact that Texas lost to a train wreck Florida Gators squad that has since fired its coach and went to overtime with both Kentucky and Mississippi State. It’s notable, too, that the committee continues to rank a three-loss Iowa, whose strength of record is No. 30, but not a three-loss Illinois, whose strength of record is No. 18. By keeping the Hawkeyes in the top 25, things look a lot better for fellow Pac-12-to-Big Ten transfer Oregon, and by keeping Illinois out, things look worse for the Trojans.
Also angry this week: James Madison Dukes (8-1, unranked), Tulane Green Wave (7-2, unranked), Arizona State Sun Devils (6-3, unranked), Illinois Fighting Illini (6-3, unranked), North Texas Mean Green (8-1, unranked), Pitt fans (who are worried Notre Dame is about to hang 100 on them).
Sports
CFP Bubble Watch: Who’s in? Who’s out? Who’s close after the second ranking?
Published
2 hours agoon
November 12, 2025By
admin

There wasn’t much movement Tuesday night in the College Football Playoff’s second ranking, with the top five staying the same, but a big winner might have been the entire state of Texas.
The No. 3 Aggies are still in a first-round bye position, Texas Tech rose to No. 6 after its convincing win against BYU and Texas moved into a safer spot at No. 10 thanks to BYU dropping to No. 12.
And in the state of Florida, No. 15 Miami regained its position as the committee’s top ACC team, while No. 24 South Florida is the first Group of 5 team to appear in the CFP top 25 this season.
The 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 in this week’s bracket based on the committee’s second ranking. For each Power 4 conference, we’ve also listed Last team in and First team out. These are the true bubble teams hovering around inclusion. Teams labeled Still in the mix haven’t been eliminated, but have work to do. A team that is 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 Tuesday night’s second committee ranking.
Jump to a conference:
ACC | Big 12 | Big Ten
SEC | Independent | Group of 5
Bracket

SEC
Would be in: Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas, Texas A&M
![]()
Last team in: Texas. The Longhorns earned a promotion to No. 10 after BYU dropped to No. 12. They had a well-timed bye on Saturday to prepare for Georgia, and no team has a better chance to impress the selection committee this month than Texas. The Longhorns will face two top-five opponents in No. 5 Georgia and No. 3 Texas A&M, but with a bad loss to Florida to go along with the defeat by Alabama, Texas is still on the bubble even though it could appear to be in a safer spot this week. If Texas finishes as a three-loss team, it’s conceivable it could be ranked in the top 12 but would likely face a similar situation to Alabama last year. The Tide was the committee’s top three-loss team but got bumped out of the top 12 during the seeding process to make room for a conference champion that earned a guaranteed spot. With the ACC and Group of 5 champions currently outside of the committee’s top 12, it looks like the No. 11 and No. 12-ranked teams would be excluded — and that’s probably the ceiling for a three-loss Texas team.
![]()
First team out: Oklahoma. The Sooners had a bye last week to prepare for Alabama, which is essentially a playoff elimination game for OU. Unlike Texas, the Sooners likely wouldn’t have enough on their résumé to compensate for a third loss, even if it were on the road to a top-four team. Their best wins are against Michigan, Auburn and Tennessee — and they would lose the head-to-head tiebreaker to Texas if their records remain the same.
Still in the mix: Vanderbilt. The Commodores need some chaos to get back into the conversation, but the overtime win against Auburn kept their hopes alive. Vandy isn’t going to play in the SEC championship game, and its only remaining opponents are against Kentucky and Tennessee. Texas, Oklahoma and Vanderbilt are jockeying for a fifth at-large bid for the SEC — which isn’t guaranteed — and Texas has the head-to-head win over Vandy. If OU and Texas both lose, though, and Vandy wins out, Vandy could move up on Selection Day.
Out: Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee
Big Ten
Would be in: Indiana, Ohio State, Oregon
![]()
Last team in: Oregon. The Ducks did exactly what the committee needed them to do Saturday — earn a statement road win against a CFP top-25 team in Iowa. While Oregon remained safe at No. 8 on Tuesday night, it doesn’t mean the Ducks are a lock for the playoff. What if they lose to USC? If USC runs the table, its chances of reaching the playoff would skyrocket to 80% according to the Allstate Playoff Predictor — ahead of Oregon (77.5%), which could still get in WITH USC, depending on how far the committee drops them after a second home loss. How the game unfolds will also factor into its decision.
![]()
First team out: USC. The Friday night victory against Northwestern (wait, he’s not the punter!) kept the Trojans’ playoff hopes alive. They avoided an upset on a short week while NU had a bye week to prepare. Before USC even gets to Oregon, though, it has another extremely difficult home game Saturday against Iowa. If USC and Michigan run the table, it could create a significant debate in the committee meeting room because USC would have the head-to-head win, but Michigan would have defeated No. 1 Ohio State for the best win in the country. USC also has its own tiebreaker problem, as it lost the head-to-head result at Notre Dame.
Still in the mix: Michigan. The Wolverines have two respectable road losses — to USC and Oklahoma — but they have a chance at the best win in the country if they can beat rival Ohio State for a fifth straight season. If Michigan runs the table, it will have a 46% chance to reach the playoff — ninth best in the country, independent of other results. The head-to-head tiebreakers could be a factor when ranking Michigan against USC and Oklahoma, but at 10-2 with a win against the committee’s top team, the Wolverines would be in the discussion.
Out: Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, UCLA, Washington, Wisconsin
Big 12
Would be in: Texas Tech
![]()
Last team in: Texas Tech. The Red Raiders separated themselves from the rest of the league with Saturday’s resounding triumph over BYU, which is one of the best wins in the country. With the bump two spots to No. 6, the Red Raiders are within striking distance of a first-round bye if they can move into one of the top four spots on Selection Day. It’s not inconceivable considering Ohio State and Indiana are likely to play each other in the Big Ten title game and Alabama still has a tricky game against Oklahoma on Saturday. This position also gives Texas Tech a little cushion should it lose in the Big 12 championship game.
![]()
First team out: BYU. The biggest movement in the ranking was with BYU sinking to No. 12, where it would be excluded from the playoff if it were today to make room for No. 12 South Florida, which is the projected Group of 5 champion. If BYU wins the Big 12, which is still a realistic scenario, it will clinch a spot in the playoff regardless of where it’s ranked. BYU’s chances of earning an at-large bid, though, took a significant hit Saturday because of how it lost to Texas Tech — with a subpar offensive performance that included three turnovers.
Still in the mix: Cincinnati, Utah. Cincinnati made its first appearance this week at No. 25 in the committee’s ranking. The Bearcats — and Utah — have at least a 17% chance of reaching the Big 12 title game. Any Power 4 team with a realistic shot at playing for its conference title has a chance at the 12-team field because the five highest ranked conference champions are guaranteed bids. Cincinnati has only one Big 12 loss (the other was the season-opener to Nebraska in Kansas City), but it was a 45-14 drubbing by Utah. The Bearcats have a chance at a statement win on Nov. 22 when they host BYU. There’s a lot of respect within the committee meeting room for Utah, but with Baylor, Kansas State and Kansas left on the schedule, winning the Big 12 is its most realistic path to the playoff.
Out: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, UCF, West Virginia
ACC
Would be in: Georgia Tech
![]()
Last team in: Georgia Tech. Even though Miami checks in as the committee’s top ACC team though at No. 15, Georgia Tech has a far better chance of reaching the ACC title game. The ACC continues to struggle with its top two teams — Virginia and Louisville — losing Saturday night to unranked opponents Wake Forest and Cal, respectively. That means Georgia Tech and Duke (yes, Duke) are the two most likely teams to play for the ACC title, according to ESPN Analytics. Georgia Tech still has an opportunity to quiet its naysayers, though, when it plays rival Georgia in the regular-season finale. While it would be one of the best wins in the country, it might not be enough to catapult the Yellow Jackets back into the field if they don’t win the ACC. The ACC isn’t in danger of being excluded from the playoff — its champion will get in — but it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that the league runner-up will join it.
![]()
First team out: Miami. The Canes got promoted to No. 15 ahead of Louisville and Virginia despite a loss to the Cardinals. Miami has a 5.9% chance of reaching the ACC title game and a 10% chance to reach the playoff, according to ESPN Analytics. Miami still has a lot of work to do to earn an at-large bid, and equally as important is hoping teams above it loses.
Still in the mix: Duke, Louisville, Pitt, SMU, Virginia. All of these teams have at least a 5% chance to still reach the ACC title game, according to ESPN Analytics. Of all of the teams listed here, though, Georgia Tech, Virginia, SMU and Miami lead the ACC with at least a 10% chance to reach the CFP.
Out: Boston College, Cal, Clemson, Florida State, North Carolina, NC State, Stanford, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Independent
![]()
Would be in: Notre Dame. The Irish ranked No. 9 on Tuesday night, earning a promotion thanks to BYU dropping to No. 12. The Fighting Irish dominated Navy on Saturday, which was playing without injured starting quarterback Blake Horvath. It was Notre Dame’s seventh straight victory since starting the season 0-2. The committee continues to consider that those two losses were by a total of four points to two CFP top-25 teams, including No. 3 and unbeaten Texas A&M. The committee was also impressed with Notre Dame’s 34-24 win against USC on Oct. 18, and that will continue to resonate with the Trojans now 7-2 after Friday’s victory against Northwestern.
Group of 5
![]()
Would be in: South Florida. After Memphis lost, the two teams most likely to play each other in the American Conference title game are South Florida and North Texas. The Bulls have the best chance (42%) to win the American, according to ESPN Analytics. South Florida is ranked No. 24 this week with wins against Boise State, Florida and North Texas.
Still in the mix: James Madison, North Texas, Tulane. JMU has won seven straight contests, and its lone loss was at Louisville, but the Dukes don’t have anything on their résumé to compensate for it. JMU’s schedule is No. 115 in the country, according to ESPN Analytics. JMU has the second-best chance to reach the CFP (35.8%) behind South Florida (39.7%). North Texas and Tulane are still alive because they both still have at least a 44% chance to reach the American title game.

Bracket
Based on the committee’s second ranking, the seeding would be:
First-round byes
No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
No. 2 Indiana
No. 3 Texas A&M (SEC champ)
No. 4 Alabama
First-round games
On campus, Dec. 19 and 20
No. 12 South Florida (American champ) at No. 5 Georgia
No. 11 Miami (ACC champ) at No. 6 Texas Tech (Big 12 champ)
No. 10 Texas at No. 7 Ole Miss
No. 9 Notre Dame at No. 8 Oregon
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 South Florida/No. 5 Georgia winner vs. No. 4 Alabama
No. 11 Miami/No. 6 Texas Tech winner vs. No. 3 Texas A&M
No. 10 Texas/No. 7 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 2 Indiana
No. 9 Notre Dame/No. 8 Oregon winner vs. No. 1 Ohio State
Sports
Locksley confident in job status amid Terps’ skid
Published
7 hours agoon
November 11, 2025By
admin

-

Adam RittenbergNov 11, 2025, 04:07 PM ET
Close- College football reporter; joined ESPN in 2008. Graduate of Northwestern University.
Maryland coach Mike Locksley said he’s not coaching for his job despite the team’s five consecutive Big Ten losses and continued struggles in league games and late in the season.
Locksley told reporters Tuesday that he deserves to keep his job, saying, “I’m the head coach at the University of Maryland.” After a 4-0 start, Maryland sits at 4-5 entering Saturday’s game at Illinois.
The Terrapins are just 17-45 in Big Ten games under Locksley, who has won 18 consecutive nonleague games at the school. Locksley is 37-46 overall at Maryland and is under contract through the 2027 season. His buyout if fired this year would be $13.4 million.
First-year athletic director Jim Smith, when asked by The Baltimore Sun whether Locksley would return in 2026, told the newspaper that his status would be determined at the end of the year. Smith did not hire Locksley and took over as athletic director in May after serving as Atlanta Braves senior vice president of business strategy.
After Illinois, Maryland finishes the regular season against No. 21 Michigan and Michigan State.
Trending
-
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
-
Environment2 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
