USC, my bad. Dunno how I came up with UCLA, except that they're both in LA. Anyway, it was a close loss either way. Aaron Rogers lost that game for you guys, not the special teams. Fourth down possessions: first possession fumble by Rogers, second possession failure to convert in the red zone (FG miss). On the third and final possession, he has 1st and goal from the 9 and throws 3 incompletions (with a sack thrown in). Rogers #s really are an example of stats being deceiving - he completed a bunch of passes because it was all low-risk dump off stuff. I doubt he completed a pass over 20 yards all game. Somehow he was 'perfect' through the first half and still trailed 16 - 10.
46-15 50-20 21-7 43-17 That's the score in the UT-A&M game the last four years. I don't think you can say that any of these games were "close."
that is not a direct h2h matchup...so that is not the same... ASU is a very solid team ...and blowing out big 10 co-champion must have count for something huh ?... that response sounds more like a denial to me..
I understand your argument and I think ASU is a decent team on the level of OK St., Texas Tech, and A&M. The problem is that for 3 teams of that quality in the Big 12, the Pac 10 only has the 1. By the way ... I wouldn't call the Big 10 a powerhouse conference. Almost like saying that OU deserves credit for blowing out the Big-12 North champion
Hey, Iowa beat the Big 12 North champion too. Talent is a little more spread out in the Big 12, yes, but it's tough to argue that the Big 12 is a better conference this year. Oklahoma is extremely good, Texas is very good, and Oklahoma State, A&M, and Texas Tech are all okay. USC is extremely good, Cal is very good, and Arizona State (and I would even argue Oregon, Oregon State, and UCLA could all play with the aforementioned Big 12 teams). Obviously, with the fact that the two conferences rarely play each other, it's tough to make a judgment one way or the other.
This is the same 5-6 Oregon team we're talking about, right? The UCLA team that DID play Tech and lost by double figures? The Oregon State team that's 1-2 in its nonconference games (2 played against schools from non-BCS conferences)? All 3 of those are OK programs, falling into the "mediocre" category. They're on par with Iowa State, Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri in the Big 12. None of the experts rate the Pac-10 as one of the top conferences in the nation, either historically or this season.
You're right about Oklahoma State--that's a better team than I gave them credit for, and I'll surrender that one. But almost every team has their games where they lose to an opponent that they maybe shouldn't--such as Baylor's triumph over A&M or Tech's loss to a probably-inferior New Mexico. But you also have to remember some of the close losses to great teams, such as Oregon State's one pointer to LSU or Oregon's one pointer to Cal. I guess I can't really say that the Pac-10 is stronger than the Big 12 this year--and I would say that historically I think the Big 12 is normally superior--it's just really dangerous to say one is much better than the other when they play so few inter-conference games.
I could see arguments for the Big 10 and SEC, but there's no way that the Pac-10 is a near-equal of the Big 12. Even in a pretty bad year for the Big 12(This is probably the north's worst year ever), they're better. There are 5 top-25 caliber teams in the South alone(Tech is literally 26th). The Pac-10 has three total. In most years, you would see at least two of KSU, Nebraska, Missouri, or Colorado in the top 25 or very close to it. Historically, there's absoutely no argument. The Big 12 is far superior. And, this year, there really isn't a great case to be made.
Not to mention that UCLA also got SPANKED by Oklahoma St. at home. Sorry but the Pac-10 has USC and Cal which is on par with OU and Texas. ASU is the only other team in that conference that could possibly hang with Tech, A&M, and OSU. ASU would probably be the underdog against all 3 of those teams as well, especially if its not at home where ASU scores 20 more points a game than on the road.
A&M looked a ton better than UT when they both played OU. However, the Disaster on the Brazos really gives me pause in terms of picking Agroid to win. I think A&M is more psyched for the game. All UT fans have been talking about is a potential BCS-screw job. Nevermind the fact that UT would probably play a better team if they went to the Cotton.
The 2001 game was tied at 7 in the 4th. Granted, there was zero chance A&M's offense was going to score, but it took two late TDs to put that one away. One, duh. This is A&M we're talking about. This game = their whole season. Not to mention their whole fight song. Two, duh. This is Texas we're talking about. Every team we play except for Oklahoma is "more psyched" about playing Texas.
Three, duh. I went to school there as an undergrad, I've been a season ticket holder, and I'm an MBA student there now. I know the ****ing Texas fight song. One mention is not the same thing as the entire song.
