Most of the college football cognescenti (more appropriately, those who self-proclaim themselves cognescenti, but were more likely our team managers on our high school teams, not that there's anything wrong with that because there isn't) seem to be focusing on three factors to distinguish Ohio State and Oklahoma (and to a lesser, or silent, degree, Notre Dame) are: (1) "the Purdue loss"; (2) Ohio State's D has been inconsistent; and (3) Ohio State has to blow out Northwestern. As an aside, a lot of Ohio State fans are unwittingly promoting that third factor.
When looking at the analytics and comparing Ohio State to Oklahoma and Notre Dame (I don't agree that ND has it wrapped up), our Buckeyes come up third. When looking at S&P+ offense, defense, overall, F+, ESPN SoR, ESPN FPI, ESPN team efficiencies, we unfortunately can do no better than #2 in a given analytical measurement. But don't despair, a group of humans will make the decision.
Now, those humans are probably going to focus on the three factors I listed above and not so much the analytics. And here's what SHOULD happen when they do. Let's take the elephant in the room first and kill it - Purdue. Recall that the "Committee" is supposed to pick the FOUR BEST TEAMS AND NOT THE FOUR MOST DESERVING. What is the difference between a 29 point loss to an undefeated team at home and a 29 point loss to a 6-6 team on the road? I don't know, but is LSU in the picture? No. This is a red herring argument and one that only would be relevant if the "Committee" was supposed to pick the FOUR MOST DESERVING TEAMS. It most undoubtedly is not. Now maybe you disagree with me and think "good losses" or "bad losses" have something to do with the quality of a particular team, but I think it only has to do with who is more deserving. In fact, often you'll here Purdue or Iowa or [fill in the blank] discussed in terms of worth or merit or respectable, etc. As in, LSU's loss to Alabama by 29 points was more respectable than Ohio State's loss to Purdue. Purdue is, in other words, a red herring at least insofar as the "Committee's" directive is concerned.
Consistency. It's true. Ohio State, and especially its defense has been inconsistent. No doubt. It's also true that Oklahoma's offense and defense have been consistent, and Oklahoma's defense has been consistently awful. We don't know which Ohio State defense will show up. No we don't. But we most certainly know which Oklahoma defense will show up. A defense that gives up on average one touchdown more per game than does Ohio State's. So in a game versus Alabama, Oklahoma is already 7 points behind even before kickoff compared to that inconsistent Ohio State defense. Alabama has scored 588 points this year, which is an average of 49 per game. Oklahoma has scored 607 points for an average of 50 per game. We know just based on the averages that Alabama is going to most likely score at least 49+7 on Oklahoma or 56. Conversely, Ohio State has scored 520 points or an average of 43 per game. Of course, Ohio State would be an underdog, but there's a chance that the defense shows up. There's a chance the Ohio State defense gets one extra stop to hold Alabama to 42 or six points below it's average. There's no chance that Oklahoma's defense gets any stops against Alabama or beats Alabama. If Oklahoma is doomed to lose to Alabama, why put them in?
Northwestern. Ohio State has to blow out Northwestern. Really? Here's where Notre Dame should come into the picture. ND beat ttun by 7. Ohio State beat ttun by 23. ND beat Northwestern by 10. Just beat Northwestern by more than 10. I like 3 touchdowns, but 14 points should suffice. Ohio State would then have better wins than Notre Dame had against common opponents. Plus, Ohio State will have two top 15 wins compared to Oklahoma's one top 15 win (assuming it beats Texas, funny how the "Committee" placed Texas at 14 isn't it). But it still shouldn't help them.
I don't know. Just my opinion. What do you think?
