there are a ton of variables. 1) better competition in bowl. 2) the amount of time to gameplan 3) weeks of delay 4) nuetral.
I'll have to verify this but I think the PAC-10 teams, with the exception of Cal, scoring has been up in Bowl games this year.
Few things here: - Mizzou's defense is terrible. Everyone has taken their turn at these overrated bunch of losers. Sad thing is that they have 3 1st-team All Big XII players on D in Moore, Weatherspoon, and Hood. As a unit, their scheme sucks and they can't tackle, so the blame is largely on that bum, Gary Pinkel. - Tech's D is vastly improved, but their issue has more to do with their poor play on the road/neutral vs. at home. I'd say they're mediocre at best, which is a huge step up from the last few years. Giving up 40+ to Ole Miss was sad. - Oklahoma State: some good athletes here such as DE Ugo Chinasa and DB Perrish Cox, but not enough depth. Not surprising, as they're still building their program into a BCS power. They're taking the right steps. - Texas: it's remarkable what Muschamp has done here with the youngest secondary in the nation. Two freshman safeties in Gideon and Thomas, with a Soph in Chykie Brown at corner. Brian Orakpo was the Nagurski winner, Roy Miller is a 1st day NFL prospect, and Sergio Kindle finally turned the corner at the hybrid DE/WLB spot. Muck was a certified badass at the SLB spot. - OU: most of their opponents points have been scored with the game well in hand (save for Texas of course). Their defense is capable of being good to great thanks to their front 4, specifically with their DTs Gerald McCoy and Frank Alexander. Nic Harris is stout at S, but the unit lost a lot when Ryan Reynolds tore up his knee in the RRS.
Honestly ... I wonder how much more complicated this picture would be if Matthew Stafford and Knowshon Moreno were doing their thing in the Big XII instead of the SEC. Any talent scout knows Stafford is as good if not better than any QB the Big XII has to offer, and Moreno is one of the top 2 or 3 running backs in the nation.
You're confusing NFL potential with college production. Matthew Stafford has been very unproductive throughout his career. Just because he has a prototype arm and size doesn't mean he's a better college QB than McCoy, Bradford, or Harrell. Hell after Bradford, Josh Freeman from KSU is the next best NFL QB prospect in the Big XII. But McCoy and Harrell dominated this year.
OSU Beavers put up a whopping 3 points. That's gotta hurt the ol Average. Yet they still managed to somehow win the game.
All credit to OU's defensive players and staff. But that was not the OU defense we saw most of the year. Only a few flashes of that versus Tech/Mizzou. But where was it when they were getting bombed by Texas, Okie State, the Kansas schools, etc. And it was pretty clear OU's offense was again ill prepared to face an elite team with athletes who can rush and cover and mix it up--see USC, LSU and now Florida. It is obviously true OU and Bradford benefited from weak defenses, give them credit for manufacturing a Heisman.
The defenses were def sucky relative to the Os and inflated the overall O stats, but how can one saw they were overrated overall. Winning bowl record with 7 qualifiers, 2 legit top 5 teams (no other conference can say this), 5 top 20 teams (I don't think another conference will say this either). 1st or 2nd best conference.
Ohio State's defense with all its all americans and NFL prospects got shredded by Texas and basically had no chance of stopping colt on the final drive. But that's just because Ohio State is lucky because the big Ten sucks and has no offense. Just like SEC. And Pac10 In conclusion all teams and conferences suck SUCK suck always forever and ARE ALWAY OVERRATED...therefore UTah and Richmond are best two teams.
Props to you, Ziggy. I whiffed on this one, badly. OU did run into some terrible luck on the end zone pick, and Stoops was a complete buffoon in a couple of third-and-1/fourth-and-1 playcalls, without which OU might have won the game. But regardless of whether they had won or lost, they clearly weren't anywhere near as efficient an offense as they were in Big 12 play, even against Texas. Moral of the story: they definitely play defense at Florida. With that said, what do I really take out of this game? That despite the apparent rises at Missouri, Kansas, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State over the past two years, it still all comes down to Texas and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma defense showed up, and easily played well enough to win. The difference was that the OU offense wasn't prepared to go up against a defense with both speed and fundamentals, and that's a direct reflection on Mizzou/Okie State/Texas Tech, the last three teams Oklahoma played. Bottom line: the Big 12 isn't nearly as deep as I and a lot of others thought, and tonight made that painfully clear. Props to Ziggy, Desert Scar, justtxyank, and all the others who came to this conclusion before I did.
When Stoops went for it on 4th and goal and was denied it was validation. In the Big 12 Stoops ALWAYS gets his 4th and 1 for a first down. The Big 12 used to be a nasty defensive powerhouse but the Leach effect is like a plague and teams will continue to be exposed against elite programs. Props to Texas for pursuing top SEC defensive coordinators and Nebraska for hiring one. Eventually things will balance out. But its going to be a long journey. Unless you have elite talent you have to prepare drastically for the spreads (Tech, Mizzou, Baylor, etc), offenses designed to give lesser talented schools a shot by spreading the defense. Meaning by the time you see USC in a bowl game you get hit in the mouth. Florida has the right idea playing great D, recruiting great D, and running a balanced power spread. Texas and OU have the right idea too (more so UT). But overall Big 12 will suffer from directly from Leach.
Interesting take Ziggy and I agree with most of it. And I agree about Stoops. I remember watching many games, but the Okie State and Tech games stick out extra big, where he would keep going for it like it was Madden 08. I kept thinking wait until he faces a defense with the athletes to match-up, and his team will not be able to respond with confidence. The problem is that if he got in the same situations and kept going for it, he wasn't going to make some (dinging confidence), or if he changed his strategy because of level of opponent, he would also lose his team character (dinging confidence). Aggression is good, but at times you have to play percentages and count on your defense coming through--a balance OU never had. As for the Leach effect on Big 12 defenses, I think it is a bit overrated though. Texas and OU's best teams mopped him and his offense up. The key is breaking down their protection schemes. Muschump really dropped the ball in the Tech game IMO. I don't know if it was lack of confidence in the secondary or expecting the front 4 to get consistent pressure (underestimating Tech's oline in strait on 1 on 1 match-ups)--but way to passive and predictable in the 1st half. Texas did mostly figured it out in the 2nd half (though they waited too late on the last drive), and OU did it all game to Tech. Florida played OU the same way. Next year I would like to see Muschamp blitz more regularly and disguise the defense better--Venables did excellent preparation in that for Florida, Tech and Mizzou--and cut those teams productions in half. As for the rest of the Big 12, I don't think any team other than Texas and OU has the full range of athletes on both sides of the ball to be elite. It is more of a recruiting thing than a scheme thing/Leach effect. But outside of the SEC no other conference has two programs at their level either--so it is hardly a knock on the Big 12. And Texas and SC in recent memory have put together just as good if not better teams than the best of the SEC over this period--so if the right team was in place the somewhat inferior conference competition didn't hinder them.
^one of the things I don't understand is why Big 12 coaches use the hurry up which tires out their own defenses, vs. teams that are willing to play ballc control ...it happened to OU vs. Texas, to OU vs. Fl, and to Texas vs. tOSU.
OU doesn't run a "hurry up" offense. They use a "look" offense. Most of the teams in the big 12 do this including OSU and texas. They frequently use the entire clock but can run it hurryup if its working. The quarterback starts the count sees what the defense is doing, pulls back, gets a new play, then hikes just before the playclock runs out. The really good teams can vary the tempo greatly and put a lot of pressure on the defense. It also keeps the defense from changing personnel. Tech is the team that hurts their defense by scoring too fast IMO.
One of the biggest reasons OU folds in big games is that they are a collection of individual talent rather than a cohesive unit. They are beaten down and demoralized in practice, and really at the end of the day, they're trying to get to the NFL. As a result you don't see the heart and will to win when they get down. Instead they fold. Another thing to consider is the fact that the BCS simply picked the wrong team: 2003: USC was the better team 2004: Auburn had an arguement (finished 13-0) 2008: Texas was the better team
Do you have any evidence for this? I agree with 03 and 08, but Auburn had no good argument in 2004. They had a weaker schedule (2 D-1AA teams) and looked much less impressive down the stretch. OU was absolutely obliterating teams offensively and defensively down the closing stretch that year when style points mattered. I think that was the year in the B12 championship game, they didn't let Colorado past the 50 yard line until the 4th quarter or something ridiculous like that, while Auburn struggled against a Tennessee team using their 3rd string QB in the SEC title game.
