Dr. Pomade

And you know if my aunt had balls we'd call her my uncle.

Yup, exactly. As much as I hate to admit this, but Ohio State never would have as many BCS bowl wins/invites as they did if they weren't Ohio State. We Ohio State fans like to brag about how many BCS bowls we went to, how many we won, etc. but many (if not most?) of them were because we were selected as an at-large bid - and the powers that be wanted to make that money.

And saying that Devin Smith was a once in a lifetime deep ball talent is hyperbolic. We have had several similar receivers at Ohio State - Ginn, Jenkins, Glenn, and Galloway to name 4.

5/10 = 50 percent 7/15 = 47 percent I'm not sure what math you use, but my cheat sheet here shows that 47 is less than 50

He's a once upon a time prince and you will use a heart symbol <3 every time you type his name or I will not like you

The true culprit might be the OL play: I'd think it was better in 2014 and 2015 than it is this year. If Barrett has no time to throw (he rarely does anymore, it seems), then it's difficult to complete any passes, and especially those way down the field.

Ironically, that blurb suggests that Barrett's regression as a downfield passer is fallacy, and then proceeds to post statistics (completion of passes 20yrds+ to certain WR's) that suggest he has regressed each year: completion percentage to D Smith [2014] > M Thomas [2015] > C Samuel [2016]. Not the most compelling argument.

Yup. And I think that has been a problem for Ohio State - the field isn't being stretched vertically enough and there is no threat of a deep ball, which effectively allows teams to crowd the box. This was exactly why Ohio State did so well in playoff in 2014: Cardale had a gun and could wing it, and we had receivers (devin smith, I love you!) who could make grabs, and it amounted to the perfect recipe: deep ball + Elliott = impossible to stop either. I'd like to see us going to a very simplified - almost juvenile - playbook: 1. If passing, you have 1.5 seconds to throw 2. After 1.5 seconds and no pass thrown, then Barrett runs with ball Barrett will have like 50 carries a game. Don't care. I will take a 4 yard gain on QB scramble over 6 yard loss on sack anytime.

If Ohio State makes it into the playoff (and I can see them being left out for Penn State), they'd better get their shit together or else they'll get embarrassed.

Final rankings will be: 1. Bama 2. Clemson 3. Ohio State 4. Washington 5. Michigan 6. Penn State ______________ If I were doing final rankings, it would be: 1. Bama 2. Penn State 3. Clemson 4. Ohio State 5. Washington 6. Michigan ________________ In 8 team playoff (what it should be), this is what it should look like: 1. Bama 2. Penn State 3. Clemson 4. Washington 5. Ohio State 6. USC 7. Michigan 8. Oklahoma

Dr Pepper Challenge: make unathletic people do athletic thing to win money to do unathletic activities

Technically, it was a neutral site, but I get what you're saying, and I'm inclined to agree.

Ohio State is about the make the playoff...with the youngest team in football. Think about that for a second. Crazy That's what elite coaching / recruiting will get you

So?

Technically, I think Houston would have it, since they too beat Oklahoma, though when they were ranked even higher. But, yeah.

No. I'd pay $100 to not watch either of those teams, which both rank highly on my despised list. If Penn State wins, their shared delusional disorder is certain to reach pandemic proportions, which will only add to my dislike of them.

BTW, Browning's stinker of a performance last night cost him whatever outside chance he had at the Heisman. I think he was like 8 of 24 for about 120 yards. Yikes

If Bama loses close: "Bama is still easily one of the four best teams in the country." If Bama gets blown out: "Bama was clearly resting starters and sleepwalking and not really up for this game, they get a pass, still one of four best." I mean it would have to be like 70 to 0 or something like that to move people off the notion that Bama doesn't belong in the playoff. Their stock is just way too high right now.

I think Ohio State handles Washington or Clemson in the playoff. I think Ohio State gets taken behind the woodshed by Alabama. As anemic as our offense has been playing, and how we have struggled with even mediocre defenses, makes me think it would get ugly real quick against the Tide. Of course, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, but... And yeah, in my scenario, Michigan is 5th in line to get the fourth spot, so chaos would have to reign for them to get in, and I just don't see that happening. There would be general resistance to putting in 2 teams from the same conference anyway (just because it seems unfair), so given that 3 of the spots are already locked up, I'm not sure how you could envision a realistic scenario in which Michigan gets in.

Washington looks like they locked up a spot with a pretty dominant performance over Colorado. 1. Bama 2. Ohio State 3. Washington / Clemson 4. Washington / Clemson / Penn State / Wisc / Michigan

I've noticed that the playoff talk tends to boil down to 2 schools of thought: 1. Best teams 2. Most deserving The playoff committee has said it is about putting the 4 best teams in the playoff, not the most deserving. Yet, so many of the arguments I hear from people lobbying for Team A to get or not get in are based on the "deserving" argument. For instance, people are using the fact that Ohio State can't win it's conference as the basis for keeping them out of the playoff. The argument is to this effect: "If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve to be in the playoff." This is a moderately stupid argument. Not profoundly, but moderately. The reason why it's stupid is because it defies logic. It defies logic because it is based on the assumption that a team must win a conference championship to be a really good team. We know that is not true. Think of it like this: what if the Pac 12 North was far and away the most dominant division? Like they just murdered everyone out of conference - Ohio State, Bama, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida State, whoever - and meanwhile all the other conferences were just awful, hot messes. Would we be saying, "Well, we can only take one Pac 12 North team because, well, only one team can win that conference and we have all these other conference winners and they need to get in there too because, well, they are conference champs" --? No, we wouldn't. Another way to think of this: the Patriots could be clearly the best team in the league but not win their division because they happened to drop 2 fluky games to the Jets. TLDR? Go be lazy somewhere else; my words matter and change lives.

I think we'd kill Washington just like USC did

You have Washington getting nod over champion Penn State? I guess that makes sense if you say 1 loss > 2 losses. So I can buy that

If Clemson loses and Penn state and Washington win, it's Bama, Ohio state, Washington, and Penn state If Clemson wins and Washington wins and Penn state doesn't, then it's bama, Clemson, Ohio state, and Washington If all 3 win, then it's bama, clemson, Penn state, and Ohio state - Washington is left out and committee cites their weak strength of non conference schedule and getting beat pretty handily by non conference champ. Ohio state will have the much better non conference schedule, better quality wins, played in toughest conference, pass the eye test, and have the "better" loss. Strength of schedule + better loss > conference championship (of a weaker conference)

Jalen for Heisman Just like all the other overrated Alabama Heisman winners