gshc2020.com

Here's a look at what you need to know for each contest, including betting info and broadcast details:

Odds are provided by DraftKings and subject to change.

Columbus Blue Jackets at Minnesota Wild

8 p.m. ET (ESPN+) | MIN -185, O/U: 6.5

Beyond the fact that they both began play as 2000-01 expansion teams, the Wild and Blue Jackets don't have a ton of shared history, with Minnesota holding a 36-23-11 head-to-head edge in their prior matchups.

But for fans of USA Hockey, this will be a fun contest. Though Brock Faber remains out, Olympic heroes Quinn Hughes and Matt Boldy will lace 'em up for the Wild, with Zach Werenski playing heavy minutes for the Blue Jackets.

Carolina Hurricanes at Calgary Flames

8 p.m. ET (ESPN+) | CAR -218, O/U: 6.5

Many of the NHL's upper-echelon teams have tried -- and failed -- to beat the defending Stanley Cup champs this season, with only the Panthers and Capitals able to do so. Is it something about their former Southeast Division foes?

Well, the Flames never played in that division, but the franchise did originally start in Atlanta. So maybe there's some extra magic in the air for them as they look to earn win No. 2 of the season against their visitors.

Reminder: Fans can catch all the action in the NHL streaming hub and on the ESPN App.

Jump ahead:
Top NHL stories
Last night's scores
NHL stats leaders
Today in hockey history

Top stories around the NHL

Here's what you need to know:

• The latest edition of the Wysh List, including Greg's conversation with Devils GM Sunny Mehta.

• Kristen Shilton explores why the Red Wings have an "us against the world" mentality this season.

• The most recent ESPN NHL Power Rankings, including the "shock of the season" for all 32 teams.

• Wyshynski identifies the top reason to watch all 32 teams this season.

• Patrick Kane set the record for assists by a U.S.-born player with a helper on a Connor Bedard goal.

• Panthers forward Brady Tkachuk became the third player in NHL history to score natural hat tricks in back-to-back games.

Saturday's scoreboard

Washington Capitals 4, New Jersey Devils 2,
Carolina Hurricanes 3, Winnipeg Jets 2
Tampa Bay Lightning 4, Vancouver Canucks 2
Florida Panthers 8, Seattle Kraken 3
New York Islanders 4, Toronto Maple Leafs 1
Montreal Canadiens 4, Buffalo Sabres 3 (OT)
Detroit Red Wings 4, San Jose Sharks 3 (OT)
Philadelphia Flyers 3, Ottawa Senators 1
Columbus Blue Jackets 1, New York Rangers 0 (OT)
Dallas Stars 4, Chicago Blackhawks 0
Nashville Predators 5, St. Louis Blues 2
Boston Bruins 4, Los Angeles Kings 1
Edmonton Oilers 6, Utah Mammoth 2
Vegas Golden Knights 6, Pittsburgh Penguins 2

NHL scoring leaders

Click here for full list of stats leaders.

NHL goaltending leaders

Click here for the full list of goaltender stats.

Today in hockey history

In 2026-27, the Flyers just got their first win Saturday in their 10th game of the season, but it took them way less time to achieve that feat in their inaugural campaign of 1967-68.

On this day in 1967, the Flyers notched their first win in franchise history in Game No. 3, outlasting the fellow expansion Blues 2-1. Ed Hoekstra scored the game-winning goal in the third period.

Here's what those beauties looked like that season:

On this date in 1967, the #Flyers earned their first NHL victory by beating the #STLBlues 2-1. https://t.co/q0tCCFYqyz

— Jen (@NHLhistorygirl) October 18, 2019

(H/T The Hockey Writers) %!s()

The bill also includes federal exemptions designed to help low-income people keep their Medicaid coverage when they are hospitalized, have to travel for medical care, or if they live in areas affected by disasters or high unemployment.

Most recently, New York City has adopted the high-unemployment exemption for the Bronx, where about 200,000 residents would otherwise have been subject to the new requirements.

However, some states like Missouri and Iowa are choosing not to take up this exemption for its residents, per new research by the healthcare policy nonprofit KFF, despite having counties that would qualify for this exemption.

The Guardian has contacted both the Missouri and Iowa state departments for comment.

Experts have noted to the Guardian why this could be the case – including states not wanting the extra administrative burden and varying political factors.

Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of KFF’s Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured, pointed to ideological opposition.

“If [state officials] are advocates of work requirements, they may feel like these work requirements should apply to everyone evenly and whether someone lives in a county with high unemployment or not really shouldn’t be a factor,” Tolbert said.

“It could also be an administrative burden, too, if the state were to adopt this hardship exception they have to submit the data on an ongoing basis to CMS and then they have to make sure their system, their eligibility system is able to blanket exempt or exclude people from these work requirements based on where they live and they’re living in a particular county. So that could be a factor as well.”

Sarah H Gordon, associate professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, also pointed to politics coming into play behind these states’ decisions.

“States that are not taking up the hardship exemption tend to be more politically conservative states that typically align with the idea that health insurance should be tied to employment or other community engagement activities,” Gordon said. “Medicaid is a federal program and there is a lot of variation between states.”

She added: “Not taking up that exemption is partly political. We have states that are taking up work requirements early, states that are taking less time to make sure they understand the new requirements. This is just a patchwork of implementation where some states are going above and beyond to try and minimize coverage losses and other states really aren’t and way more people will lose coverage.”

Joel Ferber, director of advocacy at Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, said that it was “disappointing” that the state was not currently planing to take up these exemptions that could potentially benefit its residents.

“They say that they are not because they don’t want to create additional bureaucratic burdens of its participants, but this doesn’t make sense.

“If you polled Medicaid participants and said to them, would you rather lose your healthcare or fill out a hardship form, 100% of them would likely choose to fill out the form. So it just doesn’t make sense,” he continued.

Most notably, the introduction of these new requirements will result in millions of Americans losing their healthcare coverage. A clear example of this policy in action is in Arkansas, which introduced Medicaid work requirements in 2018. By the end of that year, more than 18,000 people had lost coverage, yet researchers found no significant increase in employment.

Jacob Wallace, associate professor at the Yale School of Public Health and an expert on Medicaid, called the new work requirements “very concerning”.

“Historically, they don’t encourage people to work, but they do seem to generate administrative burdens and paperwork that leads to people dropping off the program,” Wallace said. “There’s a very broad concern about the loss of coverage that is likely to happen, and hopefully states are trying to mitigate those losses as best as they can.”

He added: “And the more hoops we ask people to jump through to exempt themselves or qualify themselves for work requirements, the more people we lose just because we don’t have the right address, or phone number. We send the paperwork but it’s confusing and we don’t provide enough support for people to do the paperwork.” %!s()

"I reckon it's a wake-up call, and the girls will think so too. We fought our way back, so we will take that away with things to work on."

New Zealand looked to be on course for a comfortable day when Stacey Waaka scored after two minutes, but Fiji grew into the match before scoring after 21 minutes.

Skipper Sereana Naitokatoka made a clever run from dummy half to find Losana Lutu who scored Fiji's first women's World Cup try

And when Sienna Laing extended the lead five minutes later, suddenly the upset looked on.

Waaka scored her second try to close the gap before the break, but after the interval Fiji's staunch defence still refused to give way.

But the pressure eventually told as New Zealand levelled then took the lead from Zehara Temara penalty kicks.

The win was not secured until the final minutes when Raecene McGregor's cross-field kick found Leianne Tufuga to score.

"We didn't put any expectations on ourselves, but they played like they had nothing to lose," New Zealand player Georgia Hale said. "They tested our waters for sure.

"Everything was in our control, then we lost it. It was uncharacteristically ill-disciplined, untidy play.

"What we wanted to do today was basic. We wanted to set the tone for the tournament by being physical and by going forwards, but we went far away from that which is not us.

"We then had to work extremely hard to make up for it. It was definitely luck in the end."

New Zealand face France at home in Christchurch next in Group B, while Fiji play Papua New Guinea.

In the men's World Cup, Fiji made a strong start to their competition with a 40-12 win over Cook Islands in Newcastle.

The two sides are in Group A, alongside co-hosts Australia and New Zealand, so face a tough ask to finish in the top two and reach the semi-finals.

Fiji have endured a turbulent build-up, with Mick Potter replacing Wise Kativerata as head coach, a power struggle within the national governing body, and captain Tui Kamikamica having to retire after suffering a stroke in March.

But they gave themselves a boost with a comfortable win - running in seven tries and scoring 34 unanswered points until two late consolation scores for Cook Islands.

Fiji will face reigning champions Australia next, aiming to go one better than their women's team and cause a seismic upset.

"Preparation will be standard," Potter said of getting ready to face Australia. "It is a two-horse race [for the championships] as far as I am concerned, so it is a chance to upset them." %!s()

While prevailing analyses tend to explain this failure through the details of the provisions, this article proceeds from a different premise: that the diplomatic stalemate between the two sides is shaped by a syndrome that has governed US-Iranian relations for years.

In international relations, psychological syndromes can arise as a result of deep crises that leave their mark on political consciousness and memory, potentially obstructing efforts at rapprochement and negotiation between countries.

In the case of Iran and the US, the syndrome is comprised of two complexes: the complex Washington developed as a result of the 1979 siege of the US embassy in Tehran and the complex Tehran developed as a result of historical US hostility and its withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.

The roots of the rupture between the two countries go as far back as August 1953 when US and British intelligence agencies helped overthrow the nationalist government of Mohammad Mosaddegh after it nationalised the oil industry in 1951. Since then, a perception has become entrenched in Iranian consciousness: that Washington does not accept an independent government in Tehran and it is prepared to sabotage it if it goes against its interests.

From this perspective, Washington’s decision to host Shah Reza Pahlavi, who had just been overthrown by his people, for medical treatment in October 1979 was read in revolutionary Tehran as a prelude to a second coup.

Iranian students stormed the US embassy on November 4 that year and held 52 Americans for 444 days. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed and have not been restored to this day.

While the incident is portrayed in the Iranian narrative as a defence of the revolution, in American consciousness, it established the image of Iran as a state that does not respect international norms, whose word cannot be relied upon and whose behaviour should not be rewarded.

That is the embassy siege complex. It is not about the incident itself so much as the informal rule it produced in US decision-making: that Iran must concede first and its concession must be verified before it receives anything in return.

The Iranian complex was shaped by this history as well, but it reached its peak in May 2018 when US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) confirmation that Tehran was complying with it.

Just two weeks later, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced 12 demands for a new deal, only four of which were related to the nuclear file. Seven of them were related to Iran’s regional behaviour in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and the Gulf. In other words, Washington did not merely revoke an existing agreement; it also raised the ceiling of its conditions for any future agreement.

The knot then deepened in June 2025 when the US took part in the Twelve-Day War and struck the nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan at a time when a new round of indirect negotiations was scheduled in Muscat. It then reached its furthest point with Washington’s participation alongside Israel in the current war.

Accordingly, a conviction became entrenched in the Iranian consciousness that an American signature guarantees nothing, that any agreement can be overturned with a change of administration and indeed that negotiation itself may be a cover for war rather than an alternative to it.

The informal rule this has produced in Iranian decision-making is that there will be no step taken before binding guarantees and no concession before pressure is lifted.

Thus, the two complexes stand at opposite ends: The first requires Iranian action before an American quid pro quo while the second requires an American guarantee before Iranian action.

A reading of the recent negotiation initiatives shows that every US initiative bears the imprint of the embassy siege complex. The 15-point plan put forward in March demanded the dismantling of the Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow facilities; an end to uranium enrichment; the suspension of Iran’s missile programme; and the abandonment of its allies in exchange for promises to lift sanctions later.

The May draft by White House envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner linked the release of Iran’s frozen funds to the suspension of enrichment first. The American response in September also stipulated the freezing of enrichment and the entry of inspectors throughout the negotiation period.

What remains constant in the American initiatives is that Iranian action precedes the quid pro quo and verification precedes trust.

The imprint of the JCPOA withdrawal complex in the Iranian initiatives is also a constant. The five-point response in late March demanded guarantees that war would not be repeated. The 10 points put forward in April demanded a binding UN Security Council resolution shielding any agreement from being overturned. And the 14 points in May demanded a nonaggression pledge that includes Israel.

Meanwhile, the seven-day plan proposed by Tehran last month stipulated the lifting of sanctions and the US naval blockade on Iran before the opening of the Strait of Hormuz on the sixth day and the start of nuclear negotiations on the seventh. What remains constant in the Iranian initiatives is that guarantees precede action and the lifting of pressure precedes Iranian concessions.

All these initiatives were dialogue between two complexes with each side drafting its text to protect itself from a repetition of its historical experience with the other, rather than to meet the other halfway. This may explain why the gap in substance has narrowed, but the gap in trust has not.

The Islamabad memorandum represents the exception that proves the rule as it was the closest moment to a settlement because it was formulated to reassure both sides over their core concerns. To reassure Washington, it stipulated the dilution of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and made the lifting of sanctions and unfreezing of funds conditional on Iranian implementation.

To reassure Tehran, it provided for an end to hostilities, respect for mutual sovereignty, a mechanism to monitor implementation and UN Security Council approval of the final agreement. Ballistic missiles were also entirely absent from the text.

But this agreement did not hold. Tehran suspended its participation in the Geneva round of talks because of the absence of a ceasefire in Lebanon, which had been a consistent demand in every Iranian initiative since March. In the Iranian reading, Washington’s inability to rein in Israel confirmed that an American signature was not enough. The JCPOA withdrawal complex immediately kicked in, and the two sides returned to square one.

By late September, the dispute appeared to have shifted definitively from substance to sequencing. Informed sources indicated that it now revolves around the order of steps rather than their content and the stated goal has become a return to an enhanced version of the June memorandum.

Here the two complexes appear in their clearest form: Washington wants the Strait of Hormuz opened and enrichment frozen first because it does not trust Iran while Tehran wants the naval blockade lifted first because it does not trust the US.

A comparison between Pompeo’s 2018 conditions and the June 2026 memorandum shows that US demands have retreated from redefining Iran’s regional role to focusing on the nuclear file and the Strait of Hormuz while Iranian demands have shifted from compensation to be paid by Washington to a conditional investment fund financed by other parties.

In other words, the substantive gap between the two sides has narrowed considerably – something that would have been unimaginable eight years ago.

However, the two complexes have not diminished; indeed, they may have deepened because of the war. Each complex feeds the other until together they have become a single syndrome, and diplomatic deadlock has turned from a passing condition into a stable structure.

Accordingly, any new formula for sequencing the steps, however precise, will remain unable to break this deadlock unless it addresses both complexes at once – something that requires a third party capable of guaranteeing both the action and the reciprocal action simultaneously.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. %!s()

From start to finish Saturday, Week 7 went down to the wire, with Texas and Alabama adding second losses to their résumés, Georgia falling at home to Auburn and Notre Dame coming up short in its first real test of the season at BYU.

With only two Saturdays remaining until the College Football Playoff selection committee reveals its first ranking on Nov. 3, the playoff picture remains muddled with no clear-cut No. 1 team asserting itself above the pack.

So, who has earned the top spot at the midpoint of the season?

Based on historical knowledge and an understanding of the criteria and protocol, here's a look at what the committee might do if the rankings were today.

Jump to:
Ranking | Bracket

Projecting the top 12

1. Miami Hurricanes (6-0)

Why they could be here: Georgia lost. Notre Dame lost. And the Hurricanes eked out a double-overtime win at home against rival Florida State in a too-close-for-comfort outing against what is now a four-loss team. While Miami lacks a true statement win, it does have three road victories, including two against ACC teams above .500 in Wake Forest and Clemson. The Sept. 18 triumph at Wake Forest will get more credit in the committee meeting room than it does from the average college football fan, as the Demon Deacons have won four straight and are on a path to see Miami again in the ACC title game. Miami's undefeated record and statistical dominance continue to outweigh its average schedule strength, with Saturday's narrow decision being the lone time this season the Canes didn't prevail by at least 13 points.

Why they could be lower: Ohio State's win at Indiana on Saturday is better than any win Miami has on its résumé.

Need to know: Even if Miami loses at Notre Dame on Nov. 7, it would still be a CFP team; but where it gets tricky is if the Canes lose that game and don't win the ACC title. The ACC champion is guaranteed a spot. But would a two-loss runner-up that dropped its only two games against ranked opponents finish in the top 12?

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 at Notre Dame. It will be the second straight away game for Miami after playing at North Carolina on Halloween, and the Fighting Irish likely will be Miami's only ranked opponent it faces during the regular season.

2. Ohio State Buckeyes (6-1)

Why they could be here: With Saturday's win at Indiana, the Buckeyes have two top-25 road wins against Big Ten opponents and have won five straight since their Week 2 loss at Texas. With Texas losing to Florida and earning its second loss, the committee would no longer use the Longhorns' head-to-head win over the Buckeyes as a tiebreaker because their records are no longer comparable.

Why they could be lower: Ohio State was fortunate that wide-open Indiana wide receiver Nick Marsh landed out of bounds on what would have been the game-winning touchdown with about a minute left in Saturday's game. It was a gritty victory for Ohio State, but partly because the Buckeyes made it difficult for themselves. Quarterback Julian Sayin threw two interceptions for the second straight week. Ohio State's collapse against now-two-loss Texas also looks worse in retrospect. Miami has been more impressive on film -- and is undefeated -- but against a weaker schedule.

Need to know: The selection committee considers injuries to key players, and Sayin will be out "several weeks" with an injury he suffered in the win against Indiana, coach Ryan Day said after the game. Ohio State has a bye week before traveling to USC to play on Halloween. With Sayin sidelined, the Buckeyes turned to true freshman Luke Fahey in the fourth quarter, and he threw two incomplete passes but the defense helped preserve Ohio State's precarious 19-15 lead. While the committee members will understand the situation, they also will watch to see if Ohio State looks like a playoff contender with Fahey in the lineup.

Toughest remaining game: Oct. 31 at USC. It's about 2,000 miles away from Columbus, and the Trojans are a talented one-loss team that could flip the script in the Big Ten with a win -- right before the first CFP ranking is revealed.

3. BYU Cougars (6-0)

Why they could be here: The Cougars earned a statement win against Notre Dame, giving them the best win of any team currently ranked in the top five. It also helped BYU that Georgia lost to Auburn and that Alabama and Texas have two losses apiece. The committee also tends to single out talent, and BYU quarterback Bear Bachmeier continues to be a game changer as a dual threat. He ran for two touchdowns, caught another, threw for a score and had 224 passing yards with one interception.

Why they could be higher: Some committee members could favor BYU's unblemished record over Ohio State's road win at Indiana and simply deem the Cougars a better team. There could also be questions in the room about Ohio State's quarterback situation without injured starter Julian Sayin. While the committee isn't supposed to look ahead, it got a small sample size of freshman Luke Fahey, who seemed understandably overwhelmed by the moment against Indiana.

Need to know: This week, the Big 12 is represented with three teams in the top 12, boosting the league's chances of getting multiple teams into the CFP. BYU doesn't play Texas Tech during the regular season but will travel to Utah on Nov. 7. The ideal scenario for the Big 12 to get multiple teams in is to have its runner-up finish with one loss. It's not inconceivable given that BYU, Utah and Texas Tech are all undefeated, but that scenario means the winner of BYU-Utah will still have that margin for error.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 at Utah. It will be BYU's first road game against a ranked opponent, and it's a rivalry game that has Big 12 and CFP implications.

4. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (6-1)

Why they could be here: It was a close loss on the road against a ranked opponent -- which isn't doomsday in the committee meeting room, but Notre Dame doesn't have much on its résumé to help overcome it. The Fighting Irish are helped by the BYU defeat being considered a good loss in the room -- better than Georgia losing at home to unranked Auburn or even Indiana losing at home to Ohio State and certainly better than Ole Miss getting hammered at Florida. It also helped Notre Dame that Alabama and Texas have two losses each.

Why they could be lower: Notre Dame has two wins against Power 4 opponents above .500: Wisconsin and at North Carolina. The Irish's defense, which has been one of the nation's best, allowed BYU's Bear Bachmeier to complete 72% of his passes in the first half when they fell behind by 11 points.

Need to know: Notre Dame is guaranteed a spot in the CFP if it finishes in the top 12 on Selection Day, but it's not guaranteed a spot in the top 12, which means beating Miami in November and avoiding a second loss is critical to its own mantra of "leave no doubt." If Notre Dame also falls to Miami, it will have lost the two biggest games on its schedule without a conference title opportunity to make up for it. That would open the door for debate in the committee meeting room.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 vs. Miami. ESPN's Football Power Index (FPI) gives Notre Dame at least a 50% chance to win each of its remaining games.

5. Indiana Hoosiers (6-1)

Why they could be here: Georgia has a worse loss, and Alabama now has two. Indiana had a close loss to what should be one of the committee's top-five teams, but there's not much else on the Hoosiers' résumé. Without a victory against the Buckeyes, the Hoosiers' best wins are against Northwestern and Nebraska, their only two Power 4 opponents with winning records. Indiana's defense has been significantly better than that of Ole Miss, holding opponents to just 12.9 points per game, and the Hoosiers employed one of the more effective defenses on Ohio State wide receiver Jeremiah Smith. IU has run the ball better than Ole Miss and has had far fewer penalties and turnovers.

Why they could be lower: The Hoosiers made some uncharacteristic mistakes against Ohio State and had a pedestrian performance from quarterback Josh Hoover, who completed just 20 of 40 passes for one touchdown and lost a fumble, his first turnover of the season. The biggest reason for IU to be lower, though, is a lack of a true statement win.

Need to know: If Indiana loses to USC on Nov. 14, there's no guarantee the Hoosiers will finish in the top 12 -- even if they are the reigning national champs. IU would have lost the two biggest games on its schedule, and it might not have enough on its résumé to win a debate with other two-loss contenders that played a more challenging schedule.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 14 vs. USC. This will likely be the last ranked opponent the Hoosiers face during the regular season.

6. Georgia Bulldogs (6-1)

Why they could be here: The selection committee has historically used losses as a way to help separate teams with similar records -- who teams lost to and how -- and the Bulldogs' narrow home loss to Auburn could be viewed as better than the drubbing Ole Miss received at Florida. Losing at home to an unranked Auburn team, though, is more damaging than Indiana's home loss to what should be a top-five Ohio State team. Georgia's win against Alabama took a hit on Saturday after the now-two-loss Crimson Tide fell 26-10 at Tennessee and dropped out of this top 12.

Why they could be lower: With three turnovers and more undisciplined penalties, Georgia hasn't looked like an elite team in either of the past two weeks -- the first two times it has really been tested all season.

Need to know: Georgia has a bye week before facing Florida on Halloween, and it's going to be a critical game because of the head-to-head result if Florida prevails and since Florida won at Auburn on Sept. 19. If Florida beats Georgia and has a road win against the Auburn team that beat Georgia on the Bulldogs' home turf, it opens the door for the committee to rank the two-loss Gators ahead of the two-loss Bulldogs in that scenario. Florida also beat Ole Miss, which could be another part of the conversation.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 at Ole Miss. Georgia's trip to Oxford will likely be the highest-ranked opponent it faces for the rest of the regular season and will give the committee an important head-to-head result to consider.

7. Ole Miss Rebels (5-1)

Why they could be here: With Alabama picking up its second loss, the Rebels moved up by default, but their résumé also includes two statement wins. The Rebels' convincing 31-3 win against Missouri on Saturday boosted their résumé, which also includes a Sept. 19 win against LSU. The Rebels' defensive woes have been glaring at times this season, though. Of the three one-loss teams clustered here, Ole Miss is allowing the most points per game (23.8), while Indiana and Georgia are each holding their opponents to under 16. The lopsided loss to Florida on Sept. 26 is glaring, but selection committee members will also know that was a tough road trip following the emotional win against former Ole Miss coach Lane Kiffin in his return to Oxford with LSU. Florida's road win at Texas also helps ease the blow of that defeat a little.

Why they could be higher: The committee could view the Rebels' two best wins as better than the best wins of both Indiana (against Northwestern and Nebraska) and Georgia (versus Oklahoma and Alabama).

Need to know: The Rebels have four tough opponents looming, starting Saturday at Texas, and if Ole Miss loses another game, the committee could revisit the head-to-head tiebreaker with Florida, since they would both be two-loss teams.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 vs. Georgia. The Rebels get Georgia at home, but two-loss Texas is reeling right now after losing to Florida, and Auburn and Oklahoma are unranked.

8. UCLA Bruins (6-0)

Why they could be here: The Bruins have found themselves in a more stable place in the top 10 thanks in part to Alabama and Texas suffering second losses. Saturday's triumph against Wisconsin with UCLA's backup quarterback was important because the selection committee will want to see if the Bruins can continue to win without starting signal-caller Nico Iamaleava. Ty Dieffenbach completed 22 of 33 passes for 264 yards in his first start for UCLA, and he did it against a much-improved Wisconsin team (4-2). UCLA also has three Power 4 road victories, including a statement win at Oregon.

Why they could be lower: UCLA continues to find ways to win, but it hasn't been able to score more than 17 points in each of the past two games against strong competition. Some of the Bruins' stats are inflated from back-to-back games scoring at least 50 points against Purdue and Maryland.

Need to know: With back-to-back home games against Michigan State and Nevada looming -- teams that are a combined 4-9 -- UCLA should be undefeated heading into the season's first CFP ranking. UCLA lost the turnover battle against Wisconsin with two interceptions.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 28 vs. USC. The Trojans have a more difficult path to the regular-season finale than UCLA does, as they are at Wisconsin, followed by back-to-back games against Ohio State and Indiana. If USC can avoid another loss before heading to UCLA, the Los Angeles rivalry game will mean more than bragging rights.

9. Kentucky Wildcats (6-1)

Why they could be here: The Wildcats moved into the top 10 after Alabama fell out, but they've also earned their way into the playoff conversation for the second straight week. Kentucky's road win against Oklahoma wasn't easy, but it has now won five straight games, including three on the road against SEC teams. The Wildcats' defense also played its best in three games, with four takeaways against the Sooners while allowing just one touchdown. The biggest difference between Kentucky and Tennessee right now is the significant gap in their schedule strength, as the Wildcats have been one of the top five teams in the country in ESPN's strength of record metric and in strength of schedule.

Why they could be lower: The committee compares common opponents, and Volunteers dismantled Alabama while Kentucky lost to the Tide 45-17.

Need to know: Just because Texas A&M hasn't lived up to the preseason hype doesn't mean the selection committee won't consider it a respectable win for the Wildcats. Kentucky beat the Aggies by double digits on their home turf, and as long as A&M finishes above .500, that will continue to carry value in the room.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 at Tennessee. The Vols are another CFP contender after Saturday's drubbing of Alabama -- the only team that has been able to defeat Kentucky so far.

10. Tennessee Volunteers (6-1)

Why they could be here: Saturday's convincing home win against Alabama pushed the Volunteers back into the conversation, and their defense under first-year coordinator Jim Knowles continues to play at a championship-caliber level. Tennessee held Alabama scoreless for three quarters and had four takeaways, and the Tide converted just twice out of 13 times on third down. The Vols' Oct. 3 home win against Auburn is even more respectable after the Tigers knocked off Georgia on Saturday in Athens.

Why they could be lower: The home defeat to Texas took another hit on Saturday after the Longhorns lost, and the win at Georgia Tech has dropped in value with the Yellow Jackets falling to 2-4. Wins against Furman of the FCS and 1-5 Kennesaw State aren't going to impress the selection committee, either. The winning percentage of the Vols' opponents is just 54.8.

Need to know: The FPI gives the Vols at least a 50% chance to win each of their remaining games except Nov. 21 against LSU.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 21 vs. LSU. Tennessee gets Kentucky and LSU at home next month, but if the Vols stumble before Nov. 21, there will be no margin for error against LSU.

11. Utah Utes (6-0)

Why they could be here: Saturday's narrow win at Colorado dropped the Buffaloes to 2-4, which isn't going to do much for Utah's résumé aside from giving it a second Big 12 road win. Utah hasn't defeated a Big 12 opponent with a winning record -- or any team above .500. Utah has the worst schedule strength of any of the contenders listed here by a large margin, which would be glaring in the committee meeting room.

Why they could be higher: Tennessee lost to a Texas team that now has two defeats, and Kentucky fell to an Alabama squad that now has two losses.

Need to know: The FPI gives Utah at least a 50% chance to win each of its remaining games.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 7 vs. BYU. This game will reveal the Big 12's leading contender for a CFP bid, unless Texas Tech has something to say about it. The Red Raiders don't play BYU or Utah during the regular season.

12. Texas Tech Red Raiders (6-0)

Why they could be here: The Red Raiders hammered Arizona State on Saturday to remain undefeated and add some style points against an unranked .500 opponent. They haven't looked like the best team in the Big 12 this year, though, and they bounced into this week's top 12 after Alabama fell out. Texas Tech's best win is at home against Houston, the only Power 4 opponent with a winning record it has beaten.

Why they could be lower: It's not just the Red Raiders' schedule strength that has been ho-hum; it's how they've played against it. Texas Tech quarterback Will Hammond has six passing touchdowns and five interceptions, and the Red Raiders have been average in overall offensive efficiency, ranking well below all of the other contenders listed here.

Need to know: If the playoff were today, Texas Tech would get bumped out of the bracket for the highest-ranked Group of 6 team, which is currently projected to be Boise State.

Toughest remaining game: Nov. 14 at Oklahoma State. Texas Tech does not have Utah or BYU on its schedule, so a trip to Stillwater tops the list.

Bracket

Based on the rankings above, the seeding would be:

First-round byes

No. 1 Miami (ACC champ)
No. 2 Ohio State (Big Ten champ)
No. 3 BYU (Big 12 champ)
No. 4 Notre Dame

First-round games

On campus, Dec. 18 and 19

No. 12 Boise State (highest Group of 6) at No. 5 Indiana
No. 11 Utah at No. 6 Georgia (SEC champ)
No. 10 Tennessee at No. 7 Ole Miss
No. 9 Kentucky at No. 8 UCLA

Quarterfinal games

Vrbo Fiesta Bowl on Dec. 30, and Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl, Goodyear Cotton Bowl Classic and Rose Bowl Game presented by Prudential on Jan. 1.

No. 12 Boise State/No. 5 Indiana winner vs. No. 4 Notre Dame
No. 11 Utah/No. 6 Georgia winner vs. No. 3 BYU
No. 10 Tennessee/No. 7 Ole Miss winner vs. No. 2 Ohio State
No. 9 Kentucky/No. 8 UCLA winner vs. No. 1 Miami %!s()