I saw about 1/2 the game last night after shelving for the night having left our manhandling of Fresno. (In the name of honesty - for the first time - I left early, but I did so because I'm very susceptible to heat exhaustion and began feeling the dizzy spells from sitting right under the sun at halftime; I left before I hurled on somebody and needed a medic).
Yes, OU did look pretty good - but once again we see the typical talking head nonsense of college football circular arguments render its ugly head.
SI: Big 12 Makes Playoff Statement
Now does anyone with a brain really think that if, say, Iowa State had just beaten Ohio State that this headline would be out there? Of course not, the story would be about how Ohio State has many problems and is overrated.
The Big 12 is NOT back at all - Oklahoma might be a contender, maybe possibly perhaps.....but the Big 12 is not back. Kansas lost again (as always), Iowa State once again played tough and lost the Cy-Hawk rivalry and Baylor, a team that won consecutive Big 12 titles just three years ago, lost to UTSA. Texas already got dusted by Maryland, so Oklahoma is essentially playing like the ole Big Eight in a two-team conference at best - them and the Cowpokes.
Furthermore, what if Ohio State now loses to Penn State AND Michigan State AND Michigan? What if the Buckeyes aren't as good as the hype?
This is what sickens me about coverage of college football........the story all depends on something your school did fifty years ago or twenty years ago. Since OU is a blue blood and so is Ohio State, therefore, the win has to be hyped in the conference favor.
Let me reiterate: OU played very well and deserved to win and yes deserves a high ranking based on what we know at this point......but the conference as a whole is still to be evaluated.