David is usually one of the most level headed guys discussing the various games. But this comment is based upon what Oklahoma has done against Big 12 teams, none of which, including Oklahoma, have defenses that can even slow down the opposing teams, and what they did against OSU, a team that I have been saying from before the season began, is not a great team, but a really good one nonetheless. I personally don't think they will make it to the CFP at all. But that remains to be seen.
When I look at Bama's D and OU's O, I'll take Bama's D. I think that if Bama brings its A game, they can beat anyone out there this year. But the A game is needed.
Part of the problem with OU's offense is their QB. Yep! Why? Because he isn't just confident; He is overly confident. He doesn't think he can do enough wrong to lose a game ('cause the Iowa State game was a fluke, as all OU fans will tell you!). He turns the ball over trying to be "Heisman man." JMO here.
The Dallas Morning News interviewed one of the members of the CFP committee which tried to evade the task of giving an objective evaluation of OU's defense so that the committee's "who has played whom and won" scenario can somehow be the ultimate deciding factor in who gets into the playoffs, rather than the four best teams.
Pollack did agree finally that the whole Big 12 was defenseless (pun intended). But he went on to say that it doesn't matter how bad a team's defense is because it is the offense that everyone looks at and evaluates in college football.
So it doesn't matter that OU has let their opponents score 41 (to 1-8 Baylor), 38 (to Iowa State that beat them and who is 6-3), 24 (to Texas who is 4-5), 35 ( to Kansas State who is 5-4), 27 (to Texas Tech who is 4-5), and 52 (to Oklahoma State who was ranked 10th at the time and is 7-2) points in their last six games.
I guess I'm just old school since I believe defense wins championships. And I look at that and say, I'm not all that impressed.
By going their subjective route, the old "eye-test" primarily with a dash of "who has played whom and how have they done since" (not understanding that even great teams can be defeated on any given day if everything goes wrong for them/against them, meaning a one-loss may be better than an undefeated team and a two-loss team may be better than a one-loss team), the CFP Committee members are cooking up a recipe that will destroy objectivity for choosing the four best teams.
I hope the season turns out in a way that will help them see the direction that they are going becomes ultimately very arbitrary.
When I look at Bama's D and OU's O, I'll take Bama's D. I think that if Bama brings its A game, they can beat anyone out there this year. But the A game is needed.
Part of the problem with OU's offense is their QB. Yep! Why? Because he isn't just confident; He is overly confident. He doesn't think he can do enough wrong to lose a game ('cause the Iowa State game was a fluke, as all OU fans will tell you!). He turns the ball over trying to be "Heisman man." JMO here.
The Dallas Morning News interviewed one of the members of the CFP committee which tried to evade the task of giving an objective evaluation of OU's defense so that the committee's "who has played whom and won" scenario can somehow be the ultimate deciding factor in who gets into the playoffs, rather than the four best teams.
Pollack did agree finally that the whole Big 12 was defenseless (pun intended). But he went on to say that it doesn't matter how bad a team's defense is because it is the offense that everyone looks at and evaluates in college football.
So it doesn't matter that OU has let their opponents score 41 (to 1-8 Baylor), 38 (to Iowa State that beat them and who is 6-3), 24 (to Texas who is 4-5), 35 ( to Kansas State who is 5-4), 27 (to Texas Tech who is 4-5), and 52 (to Oklahoma State who was ranked 10th at the time and is 7-2) points in their last six games.
I guess I'm just old school since I believe defense wins championships. And I look at that and say, I'm not all that impressed.
By going their subjective route, the old "eye-test" primarily with a dash of "who has played whom and how have they done since" (not understanding that even great teams can be defeated on any given day if everything goes wrong for them/against them, meaning a one-loss may be better than an undefeated team and a two-loss team may be better than a one-loss team), the CFP Committee members are cooking up a recipe that will destroy objectivity for choosing the four best teams.
I hope the season turns out in a way that will help them see the direction that they are going becomes ultimately very arbitrary.
