I decided to do some research to crush this myth going around that the Big XII was "down" this year. We have 8 good teams and 4 bad teams. Compared to your conferences even split 6 good teams and 6 bad teams. By good teams, my definition is teams that made bowl games. That is the ultimate bar on how good your team is, did you go to a bowl or not. We all know that Ranking sometimes can be suspect. So I think this is a true test. Then once you get to a bowl, what do you do? How many teams won bowl games? You had 6 teams go to bowl games. In those 6 bowl games you went 3-3. by far the conferences biggest Bowl win was your LSU tigers 40-3 thrashing of Miami. So your conference has 3 good teams. The Big XII by comparison had 8 good teams (bowl eligible) and 4 bad teams. In those 8 bowl games we went 5-3. And by far our biggest Bowl win as a conference was My Texas Longhorns 41-38 Rose bowl win against "The Greatest team of all time" USC. Our conference has 5 good teams. So to say that the Big XII is a "down conference" is just plain stupid. We did better in our bowl games and we won the National Championship. Your argument sux. Especially since our conference has more good teams then yours does.
I personally could care less...... But I was sure glad when UT beat USC. If only there were a way for both to lose, that would have been ideal. I don't know what's worse....USC's crowning of the greatest of all time......or UT's perpetually arrogant attitude.
I'm just tired of everyone saying the Big XII sucked this year, well you know what, it didn't. I don't think UT is arrogant at all. But if we were we definitely have reason to be, not that it's right.
that is :grin: funny, but I think he'll suprise many people. Especially with his quickness. He'll have some big shoes to fill though that's for sure. Plus we have Jevan Snead who by all accounts will surpass Colt at some point. Either later this year or his sophomore year. Funny post!!!
The Big XII clearly wasn't as good as they've been in the past. Just using bowl games can be misleading, as there are about 40 bowls a year. Not exactly an elite group of teams. Texas, Oklahoma (eventually), and Texas Tech were very good. Kansas was good (considering they're Kansas, they've been unbelievable) That's about it though. Colorado, Nebraska, and A&M were all terrible, and without contributions from them, the Big XII is simply not very good. These things are cyclical (other than the SEC never being down :hihi so it's not like it will always be a lackluster bunch of programs.
Were they world beaters? No, but they were better then most people thought. Nebraska was a good team, (they won their bowl game against Mich) and next year they'll be even better. Colorado again was a good team but not a world beaters. No argument here on the Aggies they were horrible. But the only 4 horrible teams in conference were Baylor, Aggie, K. State, and Ok. State. Other then that we were a above average conference. I'll never say better then the SEC, but you guys have 6 VERY bad teams and that weighs your conference down. The only two GOD AWFUL teams in the Big XII were Aggie and K.State. Misleading? I think not.
Just keep proving my point.... Texas really never had a reason to be arrogant until this past Rose Bowl. So what is the excuse for ALL of the years before that?
The quality of the Big 12 in 2005 is very difficult to assess. It had a truly elite team in Texas, then a significant drop off to the next level, where you had two quality teams in Oklahoma and Texas Tech. Both OU and TTU had strong conference records, solid showings in the bowl games, but both were fairly inconsistent (TTU-OkSt; OU-UCLA) and neither could stay on the field with Texas. Then there was another significant drop off, where you had the up-and-down quintet of Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Iowa St, and Missouri. These 5 teams in particular are difficult to assess. Kansas, for example, blew out Nebraska but was similarly blown out by Colorado; they hung with Texas Tech but lost to a very poor Kansas St team. Their out of conference games do not reveal much either (the Jayhawks had routine wins against Appalachain, Florida Atlantic, and La Tech, and the bowl game was a blowout against Houston). Iowa St and Colorado had roller coaster seasons as well, trading blowouts against other Big 12 middle-of-the-packers, and then losing a pair of close bowl games against the respectable likes of TCU and Clemson. Nebraska and Mizzou had similar up and down seasons, except that each finished with a close win over a solid but flawed BCS team, one beating Michigan and the other beating South Carolina. Then you round out the 12 teams with TAMU, Baylor, Oklahoma St, and Kansas St. Each of these four teams had their bright moments (TAMU hanging with UT, Baylor beating Iowa St, Okie St beating TTU, KSU beating Kansas), but overall were conference doormats and were generally poor teams by BCS standards. Added up, the Big 12 had 3 good teams, 5 teams that were dangerous, flawed, but mediocre in the end, and 4 poor teams. I think the Big 12 South was better than the North; and the Big 12 in 2005 as a whole was a notch below the SEC and ACC but better than the Big 10 and Pac 10.
