Was Texas A&M indeed worthy of one of the top four spots in the initial College Football Playoff rankings ahead of the Washington Huskies? One national football analyst thinks there's something else afoot.

In an interview with BaD Radio on KTCK-AM 1310 AM The Ticket on Wednesday, Fox Sports college football analyst Joel Klatt said he thinks A&M was only ranked that high to drive interest and TV ratings, not based on the Aggies' merit.

"If this was just going to be a press release and not a television show last night, there's no way Texas A&M is rated above Washington," Klatt said.

"When I saw Texas A&M pop up, I just kind of shook my head," Klatt said. "I was like, 'This is unbelievable.' This all about ratings and interest rather than actually valuing what these kids are doing on the field. Because no one in their right mind would rate Texas A&M above Washington. They just wouldn't or else they haven't watched.

Klatt argues that the Huskies have been winning games by a better average margin than A&M (31 vs. 17) and has better wins.

Speaking very tongue-in-cheek, Klatt says that he's on the side of Aggies fans, concerned that the CFP is using them merely for TV ratings.

"I'm on your side in this one because I feel really bad for all the Aggie fans out there. You're getting your hopes up for no good reason," Klatt said. "The committee used you to drive ratings. I feel bad for you all polishing up your rings and doing all that stuff. And you shouldn't because it's just not true. You're just not one of the four best teams in the country right now. I feel bad for you that you've been led down that path."

So how did it happen in his view?

"Listen, five sitting athletic directors among 12 committee members were trying to legitimize their own work over work of the players on the field, and they did that by valuing strength of schedule over things like wins and losses," Klatt said. "I feel bad for the Aggie fans that they were overvalued because they had two very average teams, both should be 3-5, that took the Aggies to overtime in their own stadium. I feel bad I feel bad for the Aggie fans that they were overvalued having been outgained by three opponents this year and having five opponents gain more first downs than they did. And having two opponents of Alabama gain more yards than they did against Alabama. So the committee is using you to drive ratings. I'm on your side and I'm going to fight your cause. You should not be this high. You are overrated and I will go to my deathbed saying so."

But all kidding aside, Klatt says there is a path for A&M to make the final CFP bracket.

"They've got a really good team. ... There's certainly a path. Even if Alabama were to slip up eventually in two games against LSU and maybe Auburn. I think that there is a path when you're talking about a nonconference champ, but I think it gets dicey there because everyone's going to point to Washington's nonconference schedule, and I would just point out that strength of schedule is not a great metric because it is generally derived by win-loss records. And that win-loss record is derived, at least in the SEC, based on an eight-conference game schedule and not a nine-conference game schedule. So when you look at the schedule makeup of Washington and Texas A&M, the makeup for Washington is actually in theory better than Texas A&M because A&M only play nine Power Five opponents, two Group of Five, and then an FCS while Washington plays 10 Power Five opponents, one Group of Five, and one FCS."