Showing: 1 - 3 of 3 RESULTS

College Football Playoff Projections: Week 7 Rankings and Bowl Forecast | Bleacher Report

Oklahoma State RB Chuba Hubbard

Oklahoma State RB Chuba HubbardBrody Schmidt/Associated Press

Here is the full breakdown of bowl projections, listed alphabetically by conference. New Year’s Six games have been italicized and underlined to help those of you who just scrolled to the bottom to find the marquee games.  

American (9 teams): Cincinnati (Peach Bowl), Houston (Armed Forces Bowl), Memphis (Fenway Bowl), Navy (Military Bowl), SMU (Birmingham Bowl), Temple (Boca Raton Bowl), Tulane (First Responder Bowl), Tulsa (Myrtle Beach Bowl), UCF (Gasparilla Bowl)

ACC (11 teams): Boston College (Fenway Bowl), Clemson (Sugar Bowl), Florida State (Military Bowl), Georgia Tech (Holiday Bowl), Miami (Gator Bowl), NC State (Duke’s Mayo Bowl), North Carolina (Cotton Bowl), Notre Dame (Orange Bowl), Pittsburgh (Pinstripe Bowl), Virginia (Sun Bowl), Virginia Tech (Cheez-It Bowl)

Big 12 (7 teams): Baylor (First Responder Bowl), Iowa State (Cheez-It Bowl), Kansas State (Cactus Bowl), Oklahoma (Alamo Bowl), Oklahoma State (Cotton Bowl), Texas (Texas Bowl), West Virginia (Liberty Bowl)

Big Ten (9 teams): Iowa (Cactus Bowl), Michigan (Citrus Bowl), Michigan State (Pinstripe Bowl), Minnesota (Duke’s Mayo Bowl), Nebraska (Music City Bowl), Ohio State (Rose Bowl), Penn State (Fiesta Bowl), Purdue (Quick Lane Bowl), Wisconsin (Outback Bowl)

Conference USA (5 teams): Florida Atlantic (Boca Raton Bowl), Louisiana Tech (Armed Forces Bowl), Marshall (New Orleans Bowl), UAB (New Mexico Bowl), UTSA (Frisco Bowl)

Independents (4 teams): Army (Independence Bowl), BYU (Peach Bowl), Liberty (Myrtle Beach Bowl)

Mid-American (6 teams): Ball State (Cure Bowl), Buffalo (Quick Lane Bowl), Central Michigan (Famous Idaho Potato Bowl), Miami-Ohio (Camellia Bowl), Ohio (LendingTree Bowl), Toledo (Arizona Bowl)

Mountain West (5 teams): Air Force (Famous Idaho Potato Bowl), Boise State (Los Angeles Bowl), Nevada (New Mexico Bowl), San Diego State (Arizona Bowl), Wyoming (Frisco Bowl)

Pac-12 (7 teams): Arizona State (Sun Bowl), California (Los Angeles Bowl), Oregon (Fiesta Bowl), Stanford (Independence Bowl), USC (Alamo Bowl), Utah (Las Vegas Bowl), Washington (Holiday Bowl)

SEC (12 teams): Alabama (Rose Bowl), Arkansas (Music City Bowl), Auburn (Gator Bowl), Florida (Outback Bowl), Georgia (Sugar Bowl), Kentucky (Birmingham Bowl), LSU (Texas Bowl), Mississippi State (Liberty Bowl), Missouri (Gasparilla Bowl), Ole Miss (Las Vegas Bowl), Tennessee (Citrus Bowl), Texas A&M (Orange Bowl)

Sun Belt (4 teams): Appalachian State (LendingTree Bowl), Coastal Carolina (Camellia Bowl), Louisiana (New Orleans Bowl), Troy (Cure Bowl)

                         

Kerry Miller covers college football and men’s college basketball for Bleacher Report. You can follow him on Twitter, @kerrancejames.

College football bowl projections: SEC shake-ups may have LSU struggling to even make a bowl

If you like SEC defenses, you had a bad week.  Yards and points were coming quick and easy almost everywhere in the SEC on Saturday. Alabama saw Ole Miss explode on its defense, though the Crimson Tide held on to win 63-48. That game featured the most points and yards in an SEC regulation game ever. Ole Miss racked up 647 yards, the most ever allowed by Bama.  Only two of Alabama’s 11 drives did not end in touchdowns, and one of those ended on a fumble at the 1-yard line. The Crimson Tide maintain the No. 2 spot in the College Football Playoff projections after the win.

That will get tested next Saturday when Georgia visits Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The Bulldogs defense has been pretty stout this season, but they gave up 21 first-half points to Tennessee before locking them down in the second half. Georgia cruised to a 44-21 victory over the previously unbeaten Vols.

Alabama and Georgia have clearly separated themselves from the rest of the SEC now following Florida’s 41-38 loss at Texas A&M. The Gators offense has been impressive through the first three weeks, but the defense has been a suspect. The Aggies lit them up for 543 total yards, including 205 on the ground.  As good as Florida’s offense has looked, the Gators will have to tighten that up if it hopes to make a run at an SEC title. Florida remains projected for a spot in the Peach Bowl for now, but it’s precarious.

The most surprisingly bad defense so far in the SEC belongs to LSU. The Tigers opened the season giving up an SEC-record 623 passing yards to Mississippi State in a 44-34 loss. This week, they gave up 586 yards of total offense in a 45-41 loss to Missouri. For both MSU and Mizzou, the wins over LSU are their only victories so far this season. The schedule does not get any easier for the Tigers in the tough SEC West. As it stands right now, I do not have the reigning national champions in a bowl game — at all.

College Football Playoff

Jan. 11

National Championship
Miami

Title game Semifinal winners

Jan. 1

Rose Bowl
Pasadena, Calif.

Semifinal

(2) Ohio State vs. (3) Alabama

Jan. 1

Sugar Bowl
New Orleans

Semifinal

(1) Clemson vs. (4) Oregon

Clemson faced its first showdown against a highly rated team so far this season when Miami visited Saturday night. It was not much of a challenge for the Tigers, though, as they walked away with a 42-17 win. Clemson still has to play at Notre Dame, but it still looks like nobody is within striking distance of the top-rated Tigers. The loss does not hurt Miami’s standing in the bowl projections. The Hurricanes are still projected to face Georgia in the Orange Bowl.

BYU has been running away from its early season opposition and needs to continue to do that if the Cougars hope to make a case for a spot in a

Ice melt projections may underestimate Antarctic contribution to sea level rise

Ice melt projections may underestimate Antarctic contribution to sea level rise
Thwaites Glacier, Antarctica, pictured in 2019. Credit: NASA

Fluctuations in the weather can have a significant impact on melting Antarctic ice, and models that do not include this factor can underestimate the global impact of sea level rise, according to Penn State scientists.


“We know ice sheets are melting as global temperatures increase, but uncertainties remain about how much and how fast that will happen,” said Chris Forest, professor of climate dynamics at Penn State. “Our findings shed new light on one area of uncertainty, suggesting climate variability has a significant impact on melting ice sheets and sea level rise.”

While it is understood that continued warming may cause rapid ice loss, models that predict how Antarctica will respond to climate change have not included the potential impacts of internal climate variability, like yearly and decadal fluctuations in the climate, the team of scientists said.

Accounting for climate variability caused models to predict an additional 2.7 to 4.3 inches—7 to 11 centimeters—of sea level rise by 2100, the scientists recently reported in the journal Climate Dynamics. The models projected roughly 10.6 to 14.9 inches—27 to 38 centimeters—of sea level rise during that same period without climate variability.

“That increase alone is comparable to the amount of sea level rise we have seen over the last few decades,” said Forest, who has appointments in the departments of meteorology and atmospheric science and geosciences. “Every bit adds on to the storm surge, which we expect to see during hurricanes and other severe weather events, and the results can be devastating.”

The Antarctic ice sheet is a complex system, and modeling how it will evolve under future climate conditions requires thousands of simulations and large amounts of computing power. Because of this, modelers test how the ice will respond using a mean temperature found by averaging the results of climate models.

However, that process smooths out peaks caused by climate variability and reduces the average number of days above temperature thresholds that can impact the ice sheet melt, creating a bias in the results, the scientists said.

“If we include variability in the simulations, we are going to have more warm days and more sunshine, and therefore when the daily temperature gets above a certain threshold it will melt the ice,” Forest said. “If we’re just running with average conditions, we’re not seeing these extremes happening on yearly or decadal timescales.”

To study the effects of internal climate variability, the researchers analyzed two large ensembles of climate simulations. Large ensembles are generated by starting each member with slightly different initial conditions. The chaotic nature of the climate system causes each member to yield slightly different responses, and this represents internally generated variability, the scientists said.

Instead of averaging the results of each ensemble, the scientists fed the atmospheric and oceanic data representing this variability into a three-dimensional Antarctic ice sheet model. They found atmospheric variations had a larger and more immediate impact on the ice sheet, but ocean variability was also a