clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Big 12 Roundtable: Aftermath

Here we go, this should be a fun one. We beat K-State, afterall.

1.  Some teams are coming off a big win or wins (Oklahoma, Colorado, KU, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Missouri), while others are dealing with the sting of a tough loss or losses (K-State, Texas, Nebraska, Baylor, Iowa State, Oklahoma State).  Tell us where your team is headed in the wake of the first two weeks of conference play.

We qualify as "coming off a big win", although at the end of the year it won't look that way. We are a better football team than Kansas State, pure and simple, and while it was a huge step for our football team to go on the road and win, it wasn't an upset by any means. However, to answer the question, we are clearly a program on the upswing. Mangino's recruiting classes have increasingly gotten better, and as they have our talent level, obviously, has gone up. Plus, he has discovered a couple of diamonds in the rough such as Todd Reesing, Aqib Talib and James McClinton which makes our team all the better. We are going to be a factor in the Big 12 for a long time, starting with this year, our breakout year.

2.  Colorado and Texas A&M have emerged as unlikely conference leaders at 2-0 (give yourself a cookie if you predicted that), while preseason darlings Texas (0-2) and Nebraska (1-1 and not playing well) are floundering.  Do the current leaders have the wherewithal to make it to San Antonio, or will somebody from elsewhere in the pack overtake them?

Neither of those teams will be playing in San Antonio come the end of coneferencep lay. Book it. Colorado has the best chance of either, givent he parity across the Big 12 North, but after this weekend's performances from the Jayhawks and Tigers I am sold on both. The winner of their contest in late November in Arrowhead Stadium will give the North its representative. In the South, Boomer Sooner is going to win. And if not, my money is on Texas Tech who is getting better every week IMO.

3.  A few weeks ago we did a ranking of the six BCS conferences, with most bloggers picking the Big 12 in the middle of the pack, which would be a big improvement over the last couple years.  Have the middle and bottom teams of the conference improved significantly, or have the teams at the top declined significantly?  Or is it something else?

A combination. Oklahoma 2007 version is just as good as the Texas and Oklahoma teams of the pas couple of years, but Texas has fallen a lot. A lot. Muzzurrah is entering the upper tier of the world of college football, but their coach is still Gary Pinkel, meaning they will need a lot more to meet the requirements. Regarding the bottom tier, yes the conference is much deeper than in years' past. Attribute that to the rise of programs like Kansas and Oklahoma State, and the semi-resurgence of Texas A&M and Colorado.

4.  Getting waaaaay ahead of ourselves: What if Missouri or KU goes undefeated and wins the Big 12 Championship Game?  Would they get a shot at the national championship game?

Muzzurrah should, because that would have implied at least one win against Oklahoma and a win against Kansas, but the 'Hawks wouldn't. Our non-conference schedule was just too soft, so unless we are the only undefeated team left in the land I don't see it happening. But oh boy wouldn't it be sweet.

5.  Rank the conference teams

No summaries today, just a pure ranking. Again, last week's ranking in (parentheses).

  1. Oklahoma (1)
  2. Muzzurrah (2)
  3. Kansas (3)
  4. Colorado (6)
  5. Texas A&M (9)
  6. Texas Tech (7)
  7. Texas (5)
  8. Kansas State (4)
  9. Oklahoma State (7)
  10. Nebraska (8)
  11. Baylor (11)
  12. Iowa State (12)
That's all for now.