First off, I knew Castiglione and Frank Beamer were on the Playoff Committee, but didn't realize they had to be excused from the room when the committee started talking about OU. Can they speak up for other B12 teams in the rankings?
Second...did anyone hear the CFP chairman laugh when the ESPN idiots asked about OU's defense? Our D is literally the laughing stock of CFB!!
So here is my thought...the chairman went out of his way to talk about the defenses of Alabama (shutting out LSU), Notre Dame, Michigan, and Clemson and how the committee is looking for "complete teams". The ESPN panel also spent a good deal of time talking on the "complete teams" topic which seems to be setting up for justification to leave us out. They did give us props for our offense. And when did the "complete team" requirement come about anyway...I guess it wasn't in play last year...our D was bad then, too!!
At this point, I absolutely don't feel we've earned a top-4 ranking ahead of any of the teams we are behind. However if we win out, I feel like the committee should consider this, which brings me to the point...
The committee gave/gives a TON of credit to LSU...they were top 4 before losing a 2nd game and are at #7 now (ahead of several 1-loss teams). They are far from a "complete team" IMO with their dinosaur offense, which goes against the committee's whole "complete team" theory, but whatever?? LSU is ALOT like Michigan and Notre Dame...excellent defenses, good ST, and adequate offenses. We've already seen what Alabama does to LSU and teams like that...absolutely DESTROY them. IMO, they will likely do the same against Michigan and/or Notre Dame, because neither of those teams have an offense that can challenge Bama, and they can't keep up with Bama's offense. So, why isn't the committee looking at matchups, and considering what teams would challenge the clear frontrunner (Bama). OU's historically good offense might provide the only thing that can provide a challenge to Bama in the playoffs, but they seem too focused on why we should be OUT, instead of why we should be IN?? I mean...IF we win out, of course!
Second...did anyone hear the CFP chairman laugh when the ESPN idiots asked about OU's defense? Our D is literally the laughing stock of CFB!!
So here is my thought...the chairman went out of his way to talk about the defenses of Alabama (shutting out LSU), Notre Dame, Michigan, and Clemson and how the committee is looking for "complete teams". The ESPN panel also spent a good deal of time talking on the "complete teams" topic which seems to be setting up for justification to leave us out. They did give us props for our offense. And when did the "complete team" requirement come about anyway...I guess it wasn't in play last year...our D was bad then, too!!
At this point, I absolutely don't feel we've earned a top-4 ranking ahead of any of the teams we are behind. However if we win out, I feel like the committee should consider this, which brings me to the point...
The committee gave/gives a TON of credit to LSU...they were top 4 before losing a 2nd game and are at #7 now (ahead of several 1-loss teams). They are far from a "complete team" IMO with their dinosaur offense, which goes against the committee's whole "complete team" theory, but whatever?? LSU is ALOT like Michigan and Notre Dame...excellent defenses, good ST, and adequate offenses. We've already seen what Alabama does to LSU and teams like that...absolutely DESTROY them. IMO, they will likely do the same against Michigan and/or Notre Dame, because neither of those teams have an offense that can challenge Bama, and they can't keep up with Bama's offense. So, why isn't the committee looking at matchups, and considering what teams would challenge the clear frontrunner (Bama). OU's historically good offense might provide the only thing that can provide a challenge to Bama in the playoffs, but they seem too focused on why we should be OUT, instead of why we should be IN?? I mean...IF we win out, of course!
