I see people post on here all the time that we need OU to be strong. Is that really true? In both 2005 and 2009 OU lost 5 games and Texas still played for the MNC. Does that show that even if OU is unranked and has a horrible season all Texas has to do win its games and its in? I could see if the North continued to suck and no one else in the South was any good, that having a below average conference in general would be bad, so in that respect Texas may "need" someone to be good, but I don't think it matters if that someone is OU, NU, oSu or Tech.
False. Our strength-of-schedule will improve as we play and beat better teams in the Big XII - but it only matters that our opponents are better, not which opponents are better. The one thing to be expected from Zero U is that they will continue to suck. HHD
That logic has been argued simply because so many Big XII teams couldn't keep their **** together in the past. As the Big XII remains potent within both the North & South, it doesn't matter if blOwU is good or not. I'm amongst those who prefer them to be in the NOT category.
False. We need Texas to be good. Whether that means OU, aggy, Nebraska, or any other team also has to be good, I don't give a rat's ***.
An undefeated Texas will always be in the BCS title game. You can bank on it, book it, or mark it with a "T" and put it in the oven for baby and me
I've never seen a credible argument that we need OU specifically to be a strong team in order to do well. The stronger the conference is overall the better for all of us but it doesn't need to be OU. That said the good thing about a strong OU is that every year the RRS is one of the best regular-season games in the country.
We need another team in the Big XII to be good. A North team is preferable, because victories over OU or other South teams can and will be forgotten. Meanwhile, a win over a strong CCG opponent counts for a lot at the very end. I am all for the Huskers being awesome and OU being horrible.
as pointed out above, you don't need OU to be good. you just need somebody to be good. and your best bet year in year out is us. so you are kind of stuck with us. ask cincinati if they wish they had an traditional power in their conference? they might be playing for the NC. who knows? they have to rely on the consistency at rutgers, wv, and pitt. yeah, i'd just rather know that you all will be good to very good on most years and someone esle will be good depending on the year.... KU, mizzou, ksu, whoever really.
Ohio State doesn't need Michigan to be good. They had Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin as quality conference opponents this season.
False. Look at Ohio State and USC in the past several years. Michigan has been miserable for years and until this year, nobody in Pac 10 can seriously challenge USC. Both teams made consecutive BSC appearance.
Agree with jlslayt, if USC ran the table this year, with the Big XII being down, I would have been a lot more concerned than I was about TCU/Cinn.
