COLUMBUS, Ohio -- There aren't just my thoughts, but what College Football Playoff selection committee chairman Kirby Hocutt addressed in response to questions on the conference call with reporters after Sunday's playoff and bowl selections.

I outlined some of my issues with the makeup of the selection committee previously, before the Alabama-Ohio State choice was announced.

But now we've added their words. I'm not saying Hocutt's answers actually supply any true explanation of information, but it's an on-the-record explanation. In the end, much of what he says doesn't explain much at all.

Read this understanding what I've said for weeks, that the committee does whatever it wants at any moment, and the the chairman is tasked with somehow explaining logic that can absolutely contradict itself from one week to the next.

It's a reality. But it doesn't mean it's right.

If you have an iPhone, you can play along with this exercise. It's about as asking your phone a question.

Instead of saying, "Siri," you just say, "Kirby."

1. Kirby, why did you say last week teams five through eight in the next-to-last playoff rankings - Alabama, Georgia, Miami, Ohio State - were close, and then say Sunday that Alabama was unequivocally a better team than Ohio State? All that happened in the meantime was Ohio State beating the No. 4 undefeated team while Alabama watched.

Nov. 28: "Very little separation in the committee's eyes between teams five through eight."

Dec. 3: "The committee views Alabama as a non-champion that is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country, and that's why they are in."

HOCUTT: "I would say the difference between No. 4 Alabama and No. 5 Ohio State today is close but not close enough in the determination of the selection committee to trigger our protocol where then we are instructed to go look at the four metrics that the conference commissioners have given to us.

"Close but not close enough in the eyes of the Selection Committee for Ohio State to overtake No. 4 Alabama in this week's final ranking."

REAL DEAL: Hocutt also said multiple times in explaining that Alabama made it that the Tide was "unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country, and that's why they are in."

Both things can't be true. They can't be close last week, have Ohio State add its most significant win to its resume, over a team that finished No. 6 in the final ratings, and then not be close enough now to trigger the requirement that conference champs get the nod.

When people say that weekly rankings and explanations serve only to paint the committee into a corner, this is a classic example of what they mean. Hocutt didn't stay in the corner, so he wound up covered in paint, and the shade was Non-Sensical Double-Talk Teal.

2. Kirby, did the Big Ten Championship matter at all? Your first points about the debate between Ohio State and Alabama were these:

"Here is why the Committee ranked Alabama at No. 4. Alabama has one loss, and it was on the road to now No. 7 Auburn. Ohio State has two losses, one by 15 points at home to Oklahoma, and the other more damaging by 31 points at unranked Iowa. Alabama is superior in just about every statistical category that we think are important. For example, they are No. 1 or No. 2 in every key defensive category."

All of those were in place before Saturday. So it seems like the die was cast entering the weekend.

HOCUTT: "Up until approximately 11:00, 11:15 last night central time, it had not been discussed. We did not have the Big Ten champion in front of us. We didn't have the final body of work for those teams, being Alabama and Ohio State, to compare side-by-side in that comparison for that last spot.

"To say that our minds were made up prior to going into our discussion last night after the Big Ten championship game would not be correct."

REAL DEAL: Of course that's what he has to say. No much evidence that Ohio State could have changed the committee's mind, though, and Alabama had the edge going in.

3. Kirby, isn't there something wrong with the structure of the committee when you must recuse 23 percent of the group, three of 13 members, for the final vote because they have conflcts? Ohio State AD Gene Smith, Clemson AD Dan Radakovich and former Virginia Tech coach Frank Beamer, whose son is a Georgia coach, didn't vote. So we go from an already small group selecting the teams to a super small group. And if they can't vote on that - the only vote that matters and why the committee exists at all - what is the point of them being on the committee in the first place?

The beef isn't with the recusal process - avoding obvious conflicts is important. The beef is with putting putting people on the committee who are so likely to have conflicts. Smith and Radakovich oversee college football powerhouses and if your kid works for a team, you shouldn't be in the group.

HOCUTT: "Respectfully, I don't see that as a problem. I think that keeps the process pure. I think it keeps it above reproach and question when it comes to character and integrity. I might look to Bill Hancock to talk about the recusal process and his thoughts related to it."

Bill Hancock, the execitive director of the playoff, isn't on the committee but helps organize things.

HANCOCK: "It keeps the process above reproach. These are high integrity people. It's a high integrity process. But keep the reproach in mind. When we started this, we modeled the recusal policy in many ways after NCAA sports committees which have the same policy. Ours is a little more stringent because we recuse family members where they don't in the NCAA.

"But we're all very comfortable with the recusal policy. And the 10 people who are in the room to make the decisions, we're all 10 college football experts, also people of high integrity, who put in the time and effort necessary to get the right teams."

REAL DEAL: The committee puts in months of work for one vote. If you can't take part in the final vote, because at affects a team your are associated with, or affects a team that the team you are associated with might play, then why are you on the committee?

The rest of this thing is a TV show. We like it. It breeds debate and discussion. But as the committee shows every year, what happens in the first five rankings doesn't matter. If there's anything that might keep you from voting the final weekend, you shouldn't be on the committee.

Thirteen is already a small number. Ten is too small.