Big 12 Wrap: Week 13
It's time for the final, regular-season Big 12 Wrap, a day late because of a little stomach bug that decided to take me out yesterday.
Anyway, it's been another fun Big 12 season. The North was much worse than I would have anticipated, but the South was somewhat better than I anticipated. I enjoyed it, and I have to say, I enjoy these little blurbs I write each week (even though I wonder at the start of each season whether I want to do it again).
Enough navel gazing -- on to the games!
Texas 26, Texas A&M 13
Texas was too much for their in-state rivals in Austin, dominating the second half with physical defense and a physical running game that was good enough to beat every team on the schedule besides OU. Despite a great season that in a just world would see Mack Brown in his first BCS bowl and Cedric Benson accepting the Heisman trophy, the Horns are probably going to be making a second trip to the Cotton Bowl this season, and Benson will probably get to watch Matt Leinart accept the Heisman. The BCS system is what it is, so I'm less inclined to fret over that. But if I had a Heisman vote, it would go to Benson, who got his yards every week, despite most teams loading up the box because they know Vince Young can't throw accurately enough to make them pay. For A&M, coming close against OU at home and UT at Austin should boost Dennis Franchione's recruiting, making the South even tighter next year.
Texas Tech 31, Oklahoma State 15
When is the last time it could be said that Texas Tech's defense contributed to a win? Surely not since Mike Leach arrived in Lubbock. But they did shut down an OSU offense that has been potent at times this year, and Leach's offense finally got cranked up in the second half. For Tech, getting to 7-4 has to be gratifying after Leach all but accused the team of not showing up in the blowout loss to Texas earlier in the season. For OSU, losing four of six games after going 5-0 to start the season has to be disappointing, although they were a little shorthanded after losing so much talent from last year's team. Les Miles and Mike Leach will probably both get some feelers from bigger programs after the season.
Colorado 26, Nebraska 20
This game wasn't nearly as close as the final score would indicate, as Colorado got out to a nice lead, and there wasn't much the inept Nebraska offense could do about it. It's Nebraska's first losing season in 43 years, and the first time they won't be attending a bowl in 35 years. Bill Callahan was allegedly going to bring all sorts of offense to Nebraska. Instead, the offense was mostly inept all season, and the defense was hardly the unit it was last season under Bo Pelini, the man who probably should have gotten the head coaching job. Callahan will be under the gun to get things turned around next year, but there weren't many signs this season he'll be up to the task. Gary Barnett, on the other hand, survives all the offseason scandal and turbulence to lead his team to the Big 12 Championship game next week against Oklahoma, a rematch of the conference championship of two years ago (but in Kansas City instead of Houston this time).
Missouri 17, Iowa State 14
This game was so representative of the North. Missouri was an early season darling, and probably should have won the sorry division. Instead, they aren't even bowl eligible, but beat the team that emerged in the last few weeks as the frontrunner -- or maybe it's safer to say, Iowa State gave the game away, missing a field goal that would have won in regulation, and then failing to score in overtime after getting a first and goal from Missouri's three yard line. Yes, that pretty much sums up the sorry North. Iowa State will still go bowling, Gary Pinkel may have saved his job with this win, and Gary Barnett ought to offer Pinkel a job as a Colorado assistant if he does get fired.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 11/29/04 20:51 | Big 12 Football | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
Comments
Benson for Heisman? No way. It's true; he was shackled with a non-throwing QB for most of the season, but I've never been overly impressed with him. He's a good RB, not a great one (he doesn't do anything that I find particularly exciting or impressive), and there's just no way you can give the Heisman to a player, whom, in his only big game of the season (against a team with similar caliber of athletes), contributed 92 yards, 0 big plays, and 0 points.
All he had to do to win the Heisman was play well against OU, even if TU didn't win, and he failed. No soup for him. As far as RBs go, Adrian Peterson is more deserving--he played big when his team needed him the most. And both of the Auburn RBs are better players than Benson, even if they don't have Heisman numbers because they share the ball and don't whine about it.
Matt Leinart is the best player in CFB. He's just unflappable, and his offense isn't as great as everyone thinks it is. He had no WRs for the first 6 games, and his OL was also terrible for the first half of the season, and is only decent right now.
I admiy I have antipathy to the Big 12, but I think it sucks this year. The North is awful, and even the South isn't all that great. Texas is a pretty good team, though they're one-dimensional on offense. That's about it. OSU finished the season with 4 losses and got destroyed by a mediocre Tech team. Tech also finished with 4 losses. A&M, which is certainly on the way up, is not quite there this year, as they also have 4 losses, one of which was to --gulp-- Baylor.
There is one excellent team in the Big 12, one very good team, and a bunch of mediocre teams.
Posted by TP @ 09:58 on 11/30/04
I think Benson's coaches failed him against OU. I think ten more carries might have made the difference. OU had no real depth on the defensive line then (they're still thin), and UT inexplicably didn't exploit it, preferring to turn Young into a passing QB. So, no Heisman for Benson. But if I had a vote, he'd probably get it (and that's hard for a hater of the burnt orange to say). Without Benson, Texas is right back there with Tech and OSU (and probably not as good as A&M).
But, I think Leinart will get it. And that's fine. I hope USC gets caught up in the individual awards fun that consumed OU at the end of last season. That would be just fine! :)
Posted by Kevin @ 10:11 on 11/30/04
TP,
The losses you rack up in the Big 12 south are primarily to one another. Yes, Texas Tech lost four games, but three of them were to A&M, OU, and Texas. OSU's four losses were ALL to B12 South teams. Of course you can call Texas Tech "mediocre" because of their four losses, but absent the loss against New Mexico (and a game against SMU that was closer than it should have been) that's based on their losses to other "mediocre" B12 South teams. There's a sense of circular logic here. Each team's loss proves that they're mediocre but each team's win demonstrates nothing because they were to mediocre teams.
The Big 12 South may be mediocre (except OU and UT), but you're going to have a difficult time demonstrating that with records when no matter how great a conference division is, they're going to lose to one another.
Outside of the conference, Tech, OU, and A&M are 7-2 with A&M and Tech both getting off to slow starts against MWC teams (11-0 Utah and 7-4 New Mexico) and winning both BCS-team (and bowl-eligable team) OOC games (6-4 UCLA and 6-5 Clemson). Outside the conference division, these teams are 16-2.
Last year the bowl season bore out that the Big 12 was a weaker conference than it looked on paper. That may again bear out this year. But it's particularly hard to make that kind of determination at this point.
Posted by R. Alex @ 12:25 on 11/30/04
One more tidbit I forgot to mention. The Big 12 South has five bowl-eligable teams (all with 7 or more wins), USC's Pac-10 has the same in their entire conference (two of them are 6-win teams) - though they, like the Big 12 South, lost almost all of their games to one another (exceptions to LSU and Boise State).
Posted by R. Alex @ 12:49 on 11/30/04
Alex,
I'm not sure how it follows that because aTm, Tech, and OSU lost mostly games within their conference or division, that the division is strong. What follows from that is that at least three of the teams are capable of losing or winning to each other. To me, that's a sign of mediocrity, or parity, not depth or strength.
As for the PAC-10, that conference sucks even worse than the Big 12. Bowl-eligibility means very little to me--I'm unimpressed by a Pac-10 team that wins 7 games, unless the conference has good teams, which it doesn't.
The fact of the matter is there aren't any truly dominant conferences this year. Everyone is just ok. The ACC is not particularly strong, the SEC is down from where it was the last few years (Auburn is great, Tenn. is decent, LSU is decent, and Georgia is vastly overrated), and the Big 10 stinks.
The Big 12 is no worse than any of those conferences, for sure, except perhaps the SEC, but I'm just not impressed by it this year. I'm usually unimpressed by the Big 12, but it typically takes until after the bowl season for me to perceive how overrated the conference is.
Posted by TP @ 14:01 on 11/30/04
TP
Okay, we don't disagree as much as I'd thought. You're right, it doesn't follow that the B12 is strong, but it appeared to me that you were using the records as evidence that it was, in fact, weak. I also used the Pac-10 as an example because it appeared to me that you were suggesting that Benson's achievements should be discounted because he was in a weak conference and it didn't seem to me that the Pac 10 (which Leinart was competing in) was particularly a stronger one. I think I just misread what you were trying to say.
Posted by R. Alex @ 14:19 on 11/30/04
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.