Can't really argue too much with the assessment of our game, though I think he assumes we have neutral to negative answers to all our questions, and USCw has positive answers to all of theirs. So I think we do better, but might or might not cover.
He loses me with the logic behind his pick of the barn over Clemson. "The defense is going to be terrific"?!? "The pass rush will get to Watson"?!? He doesn't say it, but that entire train of thought can be based on nothing but the return of Carl Lawson.
I confess to a feeling that the barn will do better than expected. But it's nothing more than a gut feel, born of the barn's history of confounding expectations both good and bad. Logically, it makes no sense.
I really think the pick is a function of (1) that history, (2) a desire to appear prescient, and (3) the knowledge of little downside and a lot of upside. If he's right, you can bet he'll trumpet that from the highest mountaintop. If he's wrong, well, the general public has an exceedingly short memory, and he skates.
Bottom line is that I think he's picking to impress his media peers, not picking what he really thinks.