I am saying your analogy was weak, not that Boise State is better than LSU. I don't mean to sound rude, I just do not believe this we beat them and they lost to them so we must be better than them comparisons. Last year someone was able to do that and make a 1 win team end up beating USC, which may not be too far from the truth now that I think about it. :hihi:
Texas had a shot to win it in the first 3 1/2 quarters?, u don't win games in 3 1/2 quarters u win in 4 quarters, if u think Texas had a chance to win it, then it must be logical to think that OU had a chance to score more points and win by a bigger margin, since they actually scored during the game. the worst team in the sec west won 3 games, i don't consider that one of the worst teams in Div 1-A, and u forget that the SEC west was 4-0 in bowl games last year, while the 2 best teams in the big XII south lost, i personally don't think texas could play the way Cal did vs USC, cuz Cal barely lost the game @USC, while Texas can't beat #2OU in dallas,TX
Sorry, but that logic doesn't make any sense. By your logic, LSU had no shot to win against Auburn. Note that I did not say Div 1-A. I said major conference Div 1-A. And yes, teams that lose to Maine, Wyoming, and barely beat Arkansas State are right there with the Baylors and Washingtons of the world. And the Big 12 North was a damn good division last year. What happened last year has zero relevance to this year. A lot chnges in a year.
LSU had no shot to win against Auburn? one big difference, we led during that game for about 58 minutes...Texas never led against OU...heck they didn't even score, and had we gotten into fieldgoal range at the end we could have won the game, so i don't see how we had not shot to win against auburn. Yes, msu lost to maine and wyoming, but beating Florida was no easy task, FSU lost at home to florida for the first time in like 17 years, so it wasn't a bad Fla team, and u can't really judge a division until after bowl games, so i referred to last years season
And had we gotten into field goal range, we would've been the first to score which would've changed the whole game. Ifs, hads, and would haves don't mean a thing. How does Texas have no chance to win a game that is tied for half of it and within less than one touchdown for 4/5 of it? The logic makes zero sense, especially since Texas was in striking distance more than a few times. Baylor beat A&M. Do you want me to go around here and start telling you that Baylor is good because of a fluke win? SEC West only has 3 teams in bowl games and two with a better than 6-5 record. Big 12 has 5 out of 6 teams with at least 7 wins. You don't need bowl games to show which is the stronger division here.
i never said texas had no chance to win it, and if ut would have gotten a FG at the end of the game it only would have been 12-3, had we gotten one we would have one, so its a HUGE difference . the way texas played all game it was highly unlikely that they would have won, texas had no passing game, all they could do was run. if Texas scored a FG at the beginning, how do u know that would have changed the game? the score just as easily could have ended 12-3 or 35-3 or 65-13 :hihi: :hihi: , when Texas got into OU territory, the OU defense stepped it up and forced turnovers, thats what they're good at. yea and being in scoring distance doesn't mean anything if you don't score i'm not trying to say Miss state is good because they beat fla, but i don't consider them one of the worst major Div 1-A teams when you beat a team like fla, however i consider kentucky at the bottom.
Hey, that sounds like OU's offense in the exact same game. It's obvious. A 3-0 early Texas lead would have definitely changed the game. Just like a 3-0 OU lead at halftime gave OU a major shift in momentum. If you watched the game it was obvious, the first to score was probably going to win that game. Both teams forced 3 turnovers in that game. Again, your logic especially makes no sense with this. It shows that Texas had a chance to win the game. It's a fact that was brought up after you said this: "if u think Texas had a chance to win it, then it must be logical to think that OU had a chance to score more points and win by a bigger margin" In other words, proving that Texas had plenty of chances to win it. Did they capitalize? No. But they had their chances and to say that they didn't in a game that was within less than a touchdown for almost the whole game is ludicrous. Then you're helping my case for the Big 12 South. In your thinking, Baylor is not one of the worst major Div 1-A teams either. Which gives us 5 seven win teams with one team that isn't good, but not one of the worst. This means that the SEC West has 2 teams with more than six wins, one 6-5 team, one below average team, and two Baylor's.
both teams forced 3 TO's, how many of Texas's TO's were in OU territory? give credit to OU's redzone D obviously when you get shutout, u get dominated, do honestly think Texas wuold have won the game in the 4th after being dominated the whole game? yea, i'm not saying the Big 12 south is bad or anything, but look at the big 12 north, thats where the south is getting all their wins from, at least the SEC east is just as good if not better than the west, so obviously the SEC is a lot more competitive than the Big 12, but 5 teams with 7 wins or more still is a great accomplishment but u have to look at other things
Mack Brown could get older than Paterno before Texas wins a NC ... it just ain't gonna happen ... get the net ... you green with penis-envy fool LSU will win another 2 (at least) NCs this decade ... you clowns in Texas can get your own GD'd lawnchair ... saddle up cowgirl ... catch yourself a nice tan ... right next to Tubberville and the Cigar-store "Plains-Indians" depicted in this photo :hihi:
