The second ranking could be very easy for the College Football Playoff selection committee after its top eight teams all won in Week 10. It’s not always that simple, though, when the committee “begins each week with a blank sheet of paper” and “what happened last year does not matter.”
That’s why the back-to-back defending national champs weren’t the committee’s No. 1 team in its initial ranking. Was No. 2 Georgia’s win against No. 12 Mizzou enough to change that in the committee’s second of six rankings, unveiled at 7 p.m. ET Tuesday night on ESPN?
Maybe, though Ohio State is still ranked No. 1 in ESPN’s strength of record metric, which means the average top-25 team would have the most difficult time achieving the same undefeated record against the Buckeyes’ opponents to this point.
While there wasn’t a lot of drama on the scoreboard, there are still several pressing questions facing the committee this week that at least have the potential to alter its second ranking.
1. Has Georgia done enough to unseat the Buckeyes?
One of the most significant Week 10 results was Georgia’s win against Missouri, which gave the Bulldogs their first victory against a CFP-ranked opponent. While Georgia added to its playoff résumé, Ohio State did not, beating an unranked but improved Rutgers team on the road.
The committee doesn’t rank teams based on a weekly snapshot, though. It will continue to compare Ohio State and Georgia based on their résumés to date, and assuming Penn State and Notre Dame are still top-25 wins, the Buckeyes will still edge Georgia with their schedule strength.
It didn’t help Ohio State that Notre Dame dropped to three losses after losing at Clemson, which is a four-loss team. It also didn’t help Georgia that Florida lost at home to Arkansas, and the Gators are now a four-loss team. One of the reasons Georgia was No. 2 and ahead of Michigan last week was because the committee valued its wins against Kentucky and Florida more than any opponents the Wolverines had defeated.
Another consideration is how valuable the win against Mizzou was, and that will be determined in part by how far the Tigers fall tonight. If Georgia earns a promotion to the top spot Tuesday, it would most likely be justified by the committee deeming the Bulldogs a better team while citing Ohio State’s first-half struggles at Rutgers. They’d have to explain, though, how that was different than Georgia’s first-half struggles against Mizzou.
2. Will Washington crack the top four?
Washington’s Oct. 14 win against Oregon is arguably the best in the country, but it wasn’t enough to impress the committee last week. The only difference this week is that Washington bolstered its case Saturday with a double-digit road win at No. 20 USC. The question is how much the committee values that win now that Trojans are a three-loss team.
Washington’s pedestrian performances in wins against Arizona State (2-7) and Stanford (3-6) are why the committee put the Huskies at No. 5 in its first ranking. While it was another offensive clinic for Washington against USC, the defense allowed at least 30 points for the second straight week. None of the undefeated teams above Washington lost, so if the Huskies move up, it would be because of the road win against a ranked CFP team.
3. Is Oregon still the top one-loss team?
This is a question only because Alabama now has three top-25 wins: against Ole Miss, Tennessee and now LSU. Oregon has one statement win — Oct. 28 at Utah.
The Ducks have been one of the most complete teams in the country, and the committee has and will continue to honor Washington’s head-to-head win against Oregon as long as the Huskies stay undefeated. Will the committee continue to do the same for Texas, which beat Alabama by double digits in Tuscaloosa in Week 2?
It would be surprising if it didn’t — which would leave teams ranked 5-8 in the same order — but Alabama has made significant strides against ranked competition in back-to-back weeks. It also has a better résumé than Texas, save for of course its loss to the Longhorns. The Tide are No. 4 in strength of record, while Texas follows at No. 5. That could at least generate some debate in the room as to whether the Tide should be any higher.
4. Does Ole Miss have a shot at the playoff?
The Rebels are a long shot to win the SEC, but if they run the table and finish with one loss, they will at least get some consideration. Winning the division will be extremely difficult even if the Rebels run the table because they still need Alabama to lose twice. That’s unlikely to happen, considering Alabama plays two unranked SEC opponents (Kentucky and Auburn), and ESPN’s Football Power Index gives the Tide at least an 80% chance to win each game.
If Ole Miss beats Georgia on Saturday, though, it will have the best win in the country, plus two other wins against ranked opponents in LSU and Tulane. A win Saturday would be even more impressive considering it’s in Athens. According to ESPN Analytics, Ole Miss has a 31% chance to beat Georgia and a 26% chance to finish 11-1.
If that scenario unfolds, Ole Miss will have a 23% chance to reach the playoff, according to the Allstate Playoff Predictor. So much of that, though, depends on what happens in the other Power 5 conference championship games — and how the SEC title game unfolds. If Georgia were to win the SEC, and Ole Miss beat the SEC champs … that’s a serious conversation for the committee.
Saturday’s opportunity against Georgia gives Ole Miss the best chance of any of the teams hovering around the top 10. Louisville has an outside chance if it runs the table and wins the SEC, but an 11-1 Ole Miss without an SEC title would have a better résumé than a 12-1 Louisville that won the ACC.
5. Is LSU the committee’s top three-loss team?
LSU is a critical common opponent for both Florida State and Alabama, which both beat the Tigers and need the win to continue to impress the committee. It’s also impactful to Ole Miss (see: No. 4). LSU still ranks No. 16 in strength of record, the highest of any three-loss team.
If LSU is the committee’s top three-loss team as expected, where does Notre Dame (7-3) land? Ohio State should have a top-10 win against Penn State, but how will the committee value its close road win against the Irish? The Irish are No. 22 in strength of record metric, the second highest ranking of any three-loss team behind LSU.
Perhaps the most poignant is this: If not for Barry Bonds, Jeff Kent — the only one of the eight players under consideration selected Sunday — might not be bound for Cooperstown. While Kent is the all-time home run hitter among second basemen, he was on the same ballot as Bonds — who hit more homers than anyone, at any position.
During a post-announcement news conference, Kent recalled the way he and Bonds used to push, prod and sometimes annoy each other during their six seasons as teammates on the San Francisco Giants. Those were Kent’s best seasons, a fairly late-career peak that ran from 1997 to 2002, during which Kent posted 31.6 of his 55.4 career bWAR.
The crescendo was 2000, when Kent enjoyed his career season at age 32, hitting .334 with a 1.021 OPS, hammering 33 homers with 125 RBIs and compiling a career-best 7.2 bWAR. Hitting fourth behind Bonds and his .440 OBP, Kent hit .382 with runners on base and .449 with a runner on first base.
During Kent’s six years in San Francisco, he was one of five players in baseball to go to the plate with at least one runner on base at least 2,000 times, and the other four all played at least 48 more games than he did. Turns out, hitting behind Bonds is a pretty good career move.
To be clear, Kent was an outstanding player and the numbers he compiled were his, and his alone. When you see how the news of election impacts players, it’s a special thing. I am happy Jeff Kent is now a Hall of Famer.
But I am less happy with the Hall of Fame itself. While Kent’s overwhelming support — he was named on 14 of the 16 ballots, two more than the minimum needed for induction — caught me more than a little off guard, what didn’t surprise me was the overall voting results. In what amounted to fine print, there was this mention in the Hall’s official news release: “Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Gary Sheffield and Fernando Valenzuela each received less than five votes.”
By the new guidelines the Hall enacted for its ever-evolving era committee process — guidelines that went into effect with this ballot — Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Valenzuela aren’t eligible in 2028, the next time the contemporary era is considered. They can be nominated in 2031, and if they are, that’s probably it. If they don’t get onto at least five ballots then, they are done. And there is no reason to believe they will get more support the next time.
I thought that the makeup of this committee was stacked against the PED-associated players, but that’s a subjective assessment. And who knows what goes on in those deliberations. With so many players from the 1970s and 1980s in the group, it seemed to bode well for Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy. But they were both listed on just six ballots. Carlos Delgado had the second most support, at nine.
Why? Beats me. I’ve given up trying to interpret the veterans committee/era committee processes that have existed over the years. But the latest guidelines seem perfectly designed to ensure that for the next six years, there’s no reason to wail about Bonds and Clemens being excluded. Then in 2031, that’s it.
Meanwhile, the classic era will be up for consideration again in 2027, when Pete Rose can and likely will be nominated. Perhaps Shoeless Joe Jackson as well. What happens then is anybody’s guess, but by the second week of December 2031, we could be looking at a Hall of Fame roster that includes the long ineligible (but no more) Rose and maybe Jackson but permanently excludes the never-ineligible Bonds and Clemens — perhaps the best hitter and pitcher, respectively, who ever played.
If and when it happens, another kind of symbolic banishment will take place: The Hall will have consigned itself, with these revised guidelines, to always being less than it should be. And the considerable shadows of Bonds and Clemens will continue to loom, larger and larger over time, just as they happened with Rose and Jackson.
Washington recalled forward Bogdan Trineyev and goaltender Clay Stevenson from Hershey of the American Hockey League.
Lindgren (upper body) was a late scratch Friday night before a 4-3 shootout loss at Anaheim. Leonard (upper body) didn’t return after his face was bloodied on an unpenalized first-period check from Jacob Trouba.
“He’s going to miss an extended period of time,” Capitals coach Spencer Carbery said about Leonard, the rookie who has seven goals and 11 assists after having two each Wednesday night in a 7-1 win at San Jose.
Lindgren is 5-3 with a 3.11 goals-against average in his 10th NHL season and fifth with Washington.
“We’ll see once he gets back on the ice,” Carbery said. “But [we] put him on the IR, so he’s going to miss, what is it, seven days at the bare minimum. And then we’ll see just how he progresses.”
ORLANDO, Fla. — Jeff Kent, who holds the record for home runs by a second baseman, was elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame on Sunday.
Kent, 57, was named on 14 of 16 ballots by the contemporary baseball era committee, two more than he needed for induction.
Just as noteworthy as Kent’s selection were the names of those who didn’t garner enough support, which included all-time home run leader Barry Bonds, 354-game winner Roger Clemens, two MVPs from the 1980s, Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy, and Gary Sheffield, who slugged 509 career homers.
Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Dodgers great Fernando Valenzuela were named on fewer than five ballots. According to a new protocol introduced by the Hall of Fame that went into effect with this ballot, players drawing five or fewer votes won’t be eligible the next time their era is considered. They can be nominated again in a subsequent cycle, but if they fall short of five votes again, they will not be eligible for future consideration.
The candidacies of Bonds and Clemens have long been among the most hotly debated among Hall of Fame aficionados because of their association with PEDs. With Sunday’s results, they moved one step closer to what will ostensibly be permanent exclusion from the sport’s highest honor.
If Bonds, Clemens, Sheffield and Valenzuela are nominated when their era comes around in 2031 and fall short of five votes again, it will be their last shot at enshrinement under the current guidelines.
Kent, whose best seasons were with the San Francisco Giants as Bonds’ teammate, continued his longstanding neutral stance on Bonds’ candidacy, declining to offer an opinion on whether or not he believes Bonds should get in.
“Barry was a good teammate of mine,” Kent said. “He was a guy that I motivated and pushed. We knocked heads a little bit. He was a guy that motivated me at times, in frustration, in love, at times both.
“Barry was one of the best players I ever saw play the game, amazing. For me, I’ve always said that. I’ve always avoided the specific answer you’re looking for, because I don’t have one. I don’t. I’m not a voter.”
Kent played 17 seasons in the majors for six different franchises and grew emotional at times as he recollected the different stops in a now-Hall of Fame career that ended in 2008. He remained on the BBWAA ballot for all 10 years of his eligibility after retiring, but topped out at 46.5% in 2023, his last year.
“The time had gone by, and you just leave it alone, and I left it alone,” Kent said. “I loved the game, and everything I gave to the game I left there on the field. This moment today, over the last few days, I was absolutely unprepared. Emotionally unstable.”
A five-time All-Star, Kent was named NL MVP in 2000 as a member of the Giants, who he set a career high with a .334 average while posting 33 homers and 125 RBIs. Kent hit 377 career homers, 351 as a second baseman, a record for the position.
Kent is the 62nd player elected to the Hall who played for the Giants. He also played for Toronto, the New York Mets, Cleveland, Houston and the Dodgers. Now, he’ll play symbolically for baseball’s most exclusive team — those with plaques hanging in Cooperstown, New York.
“I have not walked through the halls of the Hall of Fame,” Kent said. “And that’s going to be overwhelming once I get in there.”
Carlos Delgado was named on nine ballots, the second-highest total among the eight under consideration. Mattingly and Murphy received six votes apiece. All three are eligible to be nominated again when the contemporary era is next considered in 2028.
Next up on the Hall calendar is voting by the BBWAA on this year’s primary Hall of Fame ballot. Those results will be announced on Jan. 20.
Anyone selected through that process will join Kent in being inducted on July 26, 2026, on the grounds of the Clark Sports Center in Cooperstown.