Tennessee was very underrated this year. They lost 4 games by a combined score of 19 points and had leads in the 4th quarter in each of those games.
It's certainly shaping up that way. One of the issues with the BCS system in the past was that outcomes often seemed telegraphed. We knew, for example, that early losses mattered less than late losses, even if the early losses sustained by teams were worse losses than those suffered late in the season. We also knew that teams on top stayed on top until they lost. So it was all relatively predictable. The CFP has added some more mystery and unpredictability to the process, but it's interesting that certain pathways into the playoff (or out of the playoff) are already developing and becoming storylines as the season wears on. For example, Oklahoma, as you stated, seems like they could be this year's Ohio State and we can all see that setting up from a mile away. It seems entirely likely that, every year moving forward, we will also look for "this year's Ohio State" as the season unfolds. It remains to be seen how it will shake out in the Big 12 this year, but for two years in a row now, that league's teams (and Baylor in particular) have become the resident whipping boys for weak out of conference schedules. Because this has been a storyline for the first couple of years of the playoff, it will be interesting to see if this stance toward scheduling will become a hardwired philosophy for the committee from this point forward.
You get a pass today OSU has more paths to the championship bc, well, they're undefeated to this point. I also think they'll be 10-2, but I'm just a college football degen. They have the potential to prove all the doubters wrong.
Do you guys think the loss to UT should be overlooked for OU if they finish strong? Personally, I don't think so. An L is an L, especially to an unranked team.
I see it a little bit of a different way. Personally, I care more about who you beat and less about who you lost to. I think it's just all about what you value. If nothing else, I prefer to value who a team has beaten over who a team has lost to because the arguments over who has a worse loss are just really difficult to have. How does one really know for sure if a 5-7 Texas team, let's say, is definitively any better or worse than 5-7 Kentucky? Those types of arguments just seem to get down into the weeds quickly and involve far too much hair splitting.
