Well find out a lot more about where things stand in the race for the College Football Playoff when the official rankings come out next week. Leading up to the big reveal, our college football experts narrowed the field to the 10 teams with the best shot at the national title.Heres a look at Clemsons title chances; to vote for who you think will win it all, go to our poll page or scroll to the bottom of this feature:The case for ClemsonClemson has already beaten Louisville, which effectively puts the Tigers two games ahead of the Cardinals in the ACC Atlantic standings. Also, Florida State has two losses. FPI projects the Tigers to have an 89 percent chance at winning the division, the highest of any Power 5 team.-- ESPN Stats & InfoThe case against ClemsonClemsons offense hasnt been as impactful as it was last season. The Tigers rank 29th in offensive efficiency this season after ranking ninth last season.Deshaun Watson isnt performing like the QB we saw last season. He has a 75 Total QBR, 25th in the FBS; last season, he had an 87 Total QBR, which ranked fifth in the FBS. Watson also has two games in which his Total QBR was below 65. Before this season, he had zero such games in his career in games he would have qualified for the QBR leaderboard (20 action plays).-- ESPN Stats & InfoTalking pointsVegas odds:?Clemson has 8-1 odds to win the national title, according to Westgate SuperBook.What FPI says:?According to ESPNs Football Power Index, the Tigers have a 33.2 percent chance of winning out through the regular season and conference title game, the 10th-highest percentage in the nation, and a 71.7 percent chance of winning the ACC. Their remaining schedule, which includes a matchup against No. 12 Florida State on the road, ranks as the 42nd-most difficult.ESPN Senior Writer Mark Schlabach:?The six FBS foes the Tigers have defeated this season are a combined 14 games above .500. Thats the best opponents record among the top four teams in the AP Top 25: Alabamas eight FBS opponents are 34-25, Michigans seven opponents are 27-24 and Washingtons six opponents are 16-28.ESPNs Mackenzie Kraemer:?Despite its undefeated record and inside track to win the ACC, Clemsons 8-1 odds to win the title are worse than its odds when the line opened in January (7-1). FPI gives the Tigers a 72 percent chance to win the ACC and a 33 percent chance to enter the College Football Playoff undefeated. This weeks matchup against Florida State is by far the toughest game remaining before the ACC Championship Game.Now that youre stuffed with numbers and analysis, are you convinced the Tigers are going all the way? Cast your vote below. Air Jordan 19 For Sale . Dusautoir, the former World Player of the Year, sustained a torn bicep playing for Toulouse in the Heineken Cup on Saturday. The flanker, who has played 65 times for France, is expected to be out for up to four months. Cheap Air Jordan Online . Louis. To which I would say two things: 1. Where there is smoke, there is or perhaps has been a little fire. Or, in other words, the two teams would appear to have at least spoken. And spoken is defined as one calling the other to inquire, no more, no less. https://www.wholesalejordanshoeschina.com/ . -- Jacksonville wide receiver Cecil Shorts will likely be a game-time decision whether hell play Sunday in the Jaguars home game against the San Diego Chargers. Air Jordan Outlet . Duchene scored two goals and had an assist, helping the Colorado Avalanche beat the Carolina Hurricanes 4-2 on Friday night to match the best 10-game start in team history. Cheap Retro Jordan . With the first unit struggling of late and Amir Johnson - one of the teams iron men - hobbling on an injured right ankle, Patterson knew he could get the nod in a challenging matchup against one of the leagues up and coming players at his position.Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at cmonref@tsn.ca! Hi Kerry, I still have a bone to pick with you regarding your officiating during an Avs and Kings game back in the late 90s. That said, Ive really become a fan of yours since reading your column! Late in the third period of the game one between Chicago and Los Angeles, Dave Bolland took a run at Mike Richards who was behind the net with the puck. Richards was coming around and trying to stuff the puck home. I watched and rewound and watched the play several times. Bolland appears to leave his feet, but its hard to tell because he leaned forward, so well give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. But he definitely elevates his body in an upward direction, and the principal point of contact was the head of Mike Richards. In addition, Richards appears to have been injured on the play. Why was this not at the very least a penalty, and possibly a suspension? We keep hearing that the league wants to crack down on shots to the head but there seems to be no consistency. Not only was a penalty not called, but it appears as of this writing that no suspension will be forthcoming either. Five years ago I wouldnt be sending this email. It would have been a good hit and that would be the end of it. But the league has decided to crack down on hits to the head – unless its the third period of a playoff game. In your opinion, did the hit warrant a penalty and/or suspension? John Lord Hi John:Thank you for this well worded and thought provoking question. The reality is that the elevated hit delivered by Dave Bolland, and which resulted in Mike Richards head becoming the principal point of contact, is currently deemed an acceptable hockey hit by virtue of specific language contained in two relevant rules. The same reasoning and standard of enforcement almost always carries forward in the supplemental discipline process as well. To enhance "player safety" I firmly believe the time has come to readjust the language and thought process on elevated hits where the head of an opponent receives the majority of the impact. We should not be parsing words as "upper body injuries" continue to result from these types of hits but instead tackle the problem head on with a consistent approach. I watched in real-time as Bolland delivered the hit on Richards. Even prior to the replay being shown I sent out the following tweet; "Bolland left his feet big time to hit Richards. Wish that would be called charging." While "big time" was somewhat over reactive, the replay clearly demonstrated that Bolland elevated his body with his right skate well off the ice and the toe/tip of his lefft skate blade in contact with the ice at the instant of impact.dddddddddddd Bollands elevation, combined with Mike Richards lowered posture to play the puck resulted in a solid hit to Richards head. If you freeze frame as the two players meld together in contact both of Bollands skates are clearly off the ice. Rule 41.1 (charging) calls for a minor or major penalty to be assessed on a player who skates or jumps into an opponent. Historically "skates off the ice" has fallen into the "jump" portion of this rule and resulted in a penalty. As elevated hits have been delivered with much more frequency it also became acceptable for the hitters skates to leave the ice at the moment of contact or afterward; even as in this case the contact with the ice was with the toe of one skate blade! As body momentum is moving upward it is often very difficult to determine the instant a players skates leave the ice and the Referees primary focus in on the upper extremities of both players. Moving on to rule 48 (illegal check to the head) we find it describes a hit resulting in contact with an opponents head where the head is targeted and the principal point of contact is not permitted. The next statement in the rule; "However, in determining whether such a hit should have been permitted, the circumstances of the hit, including whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit or the head contact on an otherwise legal body check was avoidable, can be considered" clouds the decision making process for both the Referee and the Player Safety Committee. This places considerable onus on the player receiving the hit if he lowers or alters his body position to make a legitimate play. Mike Richards assumed a lower body posture as he tried to jam the puck past Corey Crawford on a wrap-around. While there was no need for Dave Bolland to elevate and check in an upward fashion given his opponents lowered head position, the parsing of words found in the rule makes it more acceptable to do so. The hitter more often than not receives a free pass on hits like this but the end result is often the same - significant contact to the head and a resulting concussion. John to answer your question directly I want a charging minor penalty assessed on this play and in all cases where a player leaves his skates to check up to the head of an opponent. Until the parsing of words is eliminated it will be inconsistently applied on the ice and in the board room other than in the most obvious cases like Justin Abdelkaders launch on Toni Lydman. Forcing players to keep their skates on the ice through a hit can only help reduce contact to the head. The skates are a great place to focus some meaningful attention in an effort to crack down on needless head hits. ' ' '