Ovi's Week 11 Rankings
Comparing Ovi's ranking philosophy
Three particularly interesting decisions stand out.
1. Utah vs. UCLA: Both teams are undefeated at 9–0, yet Utah ranks No. 2 and UCLA No. 9. Utah's 28–20 victory over BYU strengthens its case, but UCLA's undefeated record deserves serious consideration. What separates these two teams in your strength-of-schedule evaluation?
2. Texas vs. Alabama: Texas is No. 4 and Alabama No. 7, both at 7–2. Texas beat Missouri 34–20, while Alabama defeated LSU 31–13. These placements suggest you value Texas's overall résumé more highly, despite Alabama's impressive road victory.
3. Oregon vs. Ohio State: You have Oregon at No. 22 and Ohio State at No. 23. Both are 6–3, and Oregon owns the head-to-head victory. This is a clear example of applying a consistent head-to-head standard.
New entries and teams eliminated
Entering: Oregon, No. 22 (6–3).
Dropping out: UTSA, previously No. 24 (7–1).
There are still 24 returning teams, demonstrating considerable continuity despite the major reshuffling.
🏈 All 4 Downs: Ovi's Week 11 Rankings Debate
🏈 All 4 Downs: Ovi's Week 11 Rankings Debate
Strength of Schedule, Head-to-Head Results, and the College Football Playoff Controversy
By Ovi Muniz | All 4 Downs | November 8, 2026
The Road to the College Football Playoff Is Getting Interesting
Week 11 of the college football season has arrived, and the debate surrounding the College Football Playoff is only getting louder. Every victory matters, every loss carries consequences, and every ranking raises questions about how teams are being evaluated.
My Week 11 Top 25 features Georgia at No. 1, followed by undefeated Utah at No. 2, Notre Dame at No. 3, Texas at No. 4, and Miami at No. 5.
However, three comparisons deserve special attention: Utah versus UCLA, Texas versus Alabama, and Oregon versus Ohio State.
These debates go beyond wins and losses. They challenge the way the CFP Committee evaluates strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, injuries, and the overall quality of a team's résumé.
My philosophy is simple: Rank teams based on what they have accomplished on the football field, not the reputation of the program.
Utah vs. UCLA: Same Record, Different Road
No. 2 Utah (9–0) vs. No. 9 UCLA (9–0)
Both Utah and UCLA remain undefeated. Yet in my rankings, seven positions separate these two programs.
Why?
The answer is strength of schedule.
Utah has faced a more challenging schedule than UCLA. The Utes have demonstrated that they can compete against quality opponents, including their 28–20 victory over BYU. Their undefeated record is supported by the competition they have faced.
UCLA, meanwhile, deserves recognition for starting the season 9–0. Winning nine consecutive games is not easy, regardless of the opponents. However, being undefeated does not automatically mean a team deserves a top-four ranking.
This brings me to an interesting question about the CFP Committee.
Will the committee place Illinois in its Top 25, potentially strengthening UCLA's résumé?
If Illinois earns a ranking based on its own performance, that could improve how UCLA's strength of schedule is viewed. But the committee must be consistent. Teams should not receive rankings simply to make another team's résumé appear stronger.
Utah also has an important opportunity approaching. The Utes are scheduled to face No. 24 Arizona, another ranked opponent in my Top 25.
A victory would further support Utah's position among the nation's elite.
For UCLA, the challenge is different. The Bruins must continue winning while demonstrating that their schedule deserves the same respect as the schedules of other undefeated contenders.
My verdict: Utah deserves the No. 2 ranking because its strength of schedule is more challenging. UCLA deserves consideration, but an undefeated record alone does not settle the debate.
Texas vs. Alabama: Losses Must Have Consequences
No. 4 Texas (7–2) vs. No. 7 Alabama (7–2)
Texas and Alabama have identical records, but their positions in my rankings are different.
Texas defeated Missouri 34–20, while Alabama earned an impressive 31–13 victory over LSU.
Both are quality wins. However, Alabama's loss to Tennessee remains an important factor in my evaluation.
Tennessee currently sits at No. 6 in my rankings, one position ahead of Alabama.
That head-to-head result matters.
Alabama cannot simply erase its loss to Tennessee because it later defeated LSU. Every game contributes to a team's résumé, and head-to-head results should carry significant weight.
I recognize that Alabama competes in one of the toughest conferences in college football. However, conference reputation should never automatically determine a team's ranking.
Texas has earned its No. 4 position based on my assessment of its complete body of work.
The question for the CFP Committee is whether it will apply the same standard consistently.
Will the committee reward quality victories while also holding teams accountable for their losses?
Or will the reputation of certain programs influence how those losses are evaluated?
My verdict: Texas deserves to remain ahead of Alabama. Alabama's loss to Tennessee cannot be overlooked, regardless of how impressive its victory over LSU may have been.
Oregon vs. Ohio State: From Championship Expectations to Playoff Uncertainty
No. 22 Oregon (6–3) vs. No. 23 Ohio State (6–3)
Last season, Oregon and Ohio State were programs associated with national championship expectations.
This season tells a different story.
Both teams enter Week 11 with three losses, and neither appears to be a convincing playoff contender based on its current résumé.
Oregon defeated Ohio State 41–28, which gives the Ducks the head-to-head advantage. That result is why Oregon sits one position ahead of Ohio State in my rankings.
However, Ohio State's situation raises another important consideration: quarterback Julian Sayin's reported season-ending injury.
If Ohio State must finish the season without its starting quarterback, that significantly changes the team's outlook.
The quarterback position is critical to offensive production, leadership, and execution. Losing a starting quarterback can force an entire offense to adjust its approach.
But should injuries influence CFP rankings?
There are two ways to examine this question.
First, the committee must evaluate what a team has accomplished. A loss remains a loss, regardless of who was available to play.
Second, the committee must consider what a team looks like moving forward, particularly when evaluating its ability to compete against playoff-caliber opponents.
That creates a difficult balance.
Injuries may explain why a team struggles, but they should not automatically excuse poor results.
For Oregon, the head-to-head victory is meaningful. However, three losses leave the Ducks with considerable ground to make up.
For Ohio State, the combination of three losses and uncertainty at quarterback makes its playoff outlook even more challenging.
My verdict: Oregon deserves to rank ahead of Ohio State because it won the head-to-head matchup. Neither team currently has the résumé of a convincing playoff contender.
The Bigger Question: What Does the CFP Committee Actually Value?
As we move deeper into November, the College Football Playoff Committee must demonstrate consistency in how it evaluates teams.
I believe five factors should guide the rankings:
Strength of schedule: Who did you play, and how difficult was your competition?
Head-to-head results: When two teams have played each other, the winner deserves meaningful consideration.
Quality victories: Beating strong opponents should carry more weight than accumulating wins against weaker competition.
Losses and overall résumé: Teams must be held accountable for their setbacks, not protected by their reputation.
Injuries and team performance: Significant injuries provide context, but they should not erase what happened on the field.
The committee cannot claim strength of schedule matters one week and then overlook it the next.
It cannot emphasize head-to-head results in one comparison while dismissing them in another without providing a reasonable explanation.
And it certainly should not allow the history of a football program to overshadow what that team has accomplished this season.
The College Football Playoff should be about the current season, not championships won years ago.
Ovi's Fourth Down Takeaway: The Eye Test Needs Glasses
Here is where I stand.
Utah and UCLA are both undefeated, but they have not traveled the same road. Utah has faced stronger competition, and that matters.
Texas and Alabama have identical records, but Alabama's loss to Tennessee remains part of its résumé. You cannot celebrate the victories and ignore the defeats.
Oregon and Ohio State are two recognizable programs that have fallen short of expectations. Oregon owns the head-to-head advantage, and Ohio State's quarterback situation adds another layer of uncertainty.
The CFP Committee has a responsibility to evaluate teams fairly, consistently, and transparently.
I am tired of hearing about the eye test without a clear explanation of what that test actually measures.
Are we evaluating performance? Strength of schedule? Head-to-head results? Or are we simply rewarding the teams we expected to be good before the season started?
Because those are four very different things.
A team's name should never carry more weight than its accomplishments.
There are still important games remaining, and the rankings will continue to change. But one principle should remain constant:
The scoreboard tells us who won. The schedule tells us who they beat. And the résumé should tell us where they belong.
That's my Fourth Down Takeaway!
All 4 Downs with Ovi
College football analysis, rankings, predictions, and the conversations that matter.
Join the debate: Should Utah be ranked seven spots ahead of UCLA? Does Alabama's loss to Tennessee justify placing Texas higher? And should injuries affect the CFP Committee's evaluation of Ohio State?
The debate continues, and the road to the College Football Playoff is far from over.