Top 25 toughest schedules

[Pedro Guerrero]

(That one little play cost Ok the game and the other 59 min. of Duck domination had nothing to do with it? Perhaps it was the noise at Autzen stadium (that just slipped out) Plus you ASSume that had the OKs gotten the ball they would have scored)

 

 

 

Score by Quarters 1 2 3 4 Score

----------------- -- -- -- -- -----

Oklahoma............ 3 3 14 13 - 33

Oregon.............. 10 3 0 21 - 34

 

 

Oregon domination? OU was winning after 3 QTRs. Oregon scored after recovering the "On-side" kick and then they blocked an OU field goal attempt at the end of the game. Also had OU gotten the ball all they had to do was run out the clock......they were winning. Not sticking up for OU but at no point did Oregon dominate that game. It took two really bad calls to help them win that game. Just thought I would point this stuff out.

 

Anyway.

 

Last year the Pac 10 was 6-1 against the Big 12. (OU beat Washington, ASU beat CU and WSU beat Baylor)

In 05 the Big 12 was 2-1 against the Pac-10.(UCLA beat OU, OU beat Oregon and Texas beat USC)

This year there are 2 head to head match-ups(CU-ASU and NU-USC)

What does any of this mean? Last year the Pac-10 was better but the year before you would have to give the nod to the Big 12 for one reason and that is Texas beating USC for the NC.

[Landlord]

Tarheel, perfectly legitimate argument, but I don't think he was comparing the Pac-10 to the Big XII, but rather comparing it to it's hype. The Big 12 hasn't been hyped as an elite conference for some time now, and the Pac-10 seems to always be popular, but the teams always disappoint, according to how people think they will do.

[TarheelTrojan]

Tarheel, perfectly legitimate argument, but I don't think he was comparing the Pac-10 to the Big XII, but rather comparing it to it's hype. The Big 12 hasn't been hyped as an elite conference for some time now, and the Pac-10 seems to always be popular, but the teams always disappoint, according to how people think they will do.

 

Yeah. That was what I was trying to say. Thanks for explaining me better than I can.