Rundown On the Oregon-Arizona Game

I really hate to sound like a sore loser, but to all the Arizona Wildcat players: you lucked out so much. If Dennis Dixon doesn't get hurt in the first quarter, you lose that game.

Yeah okay, so I know that doesn't make a difference and all that matters is what really happened. But I just think that bad luck beat the Ducks tonight, and not the Arizona Wildcats.

Couple of thoughts I have about this game:

1. Brady Leaf was horrible. I am sure he's a nice guy and all, but that game last night was just awful. After two or three snaps, I knew they had no chance to come back. Or even compete for that matter. Did Leaf even complete a pass all game long? If he did, I don't think I saw it. I was channel surfing a bit after Dixon went out, and I don't think I saw one completed pass over 6 yards when I came back to the game.

This makes me wonder also. Does Oregon even have a shot of winning their last two games of the year? They visit UCLA next week and then end the season at home against Oregon State. I would put money that, if Dixon doesn't end up coming back, the Ducks lose both those games. I am sorry to say that, but did you see any of the game when Leaf was running the offense? That offense isn't beating anyone.

2. Saw this story this morning on The Big Lead. I completely agree with them when they say this: "But it doesn’t feel like the Ducks choked … how can you come down hard on a team that loses its starting QB and RB, and has to make due with a Leaf brother?" But we hardly can agree with them when they say this: "But we can all agree on the state of the Pac-10: what a mediocre conference."

I don't see how they can make that argument. First of all, you can't fairly judge how good a conference is, when you're comparing in-conference games. It just doesn't produce the results you're looking for when you want to know what conference is superior. If you want to know what conference is better between the Pac-10 and the SEC, you probably should look at games where Pac-10 teams play SEC teams. Makes sense right?

If you want to know which conference is better, the Pac-10 or the SEC, looking at the Tennessee-Cal game would probably work better than looking at a Stanford-USC matchup. Maybe it's just me though.

You can't say just because Arizona, who has a 4-4 conference record, beat Oregon last night, that the Pac-10 is any weaker. It really doesn't have much bearing on the conference as a whole, if you ask me. Plus, a HUGE part of why Oregon lost last night was Dixon's injury. Like I said earlier, I hate to make excuses and blame it all on Dixon going down, but let's be honest here.

Try this scenario out: #4 Kansas goes into Boulder to play Colorado (or Kansas State or Oklahoma State or any other Big 12 team with a mediocre record). And let's say Kansas loses Todd Reesing in the first quarter and he's gone the rest of the game. What happens? Colorado wins? You cannot tell me that Colorado isn't going to have a better-than-average shot of beating Kansas, if Reesing went down. In fact, Colorado already almost beat Kansas (lost to them 14-19) and that was WITH Todd Reesing playing. Take what you want from that...anyway.

So I just don't see how the scenario above would (if it happened) make the Big 12 a weaker conference. In the same way, I don't agree that because Oregon lost to Arizona without their star QB, that makes the Pac-10 just a "mediocre" conference.

Arizona lucked out and beat Oregon. That is the fact of the matter. It is what it is. Nothing more. It doesn't mean that the Pac-10 is a scrub conference now. It was just bad luck, plain and simple. If that happened to any one of the top 15 teams in the country, they would lose as well.

(disclaimer: FYI -- I have never considered myself an Oregon Duck fan, and don't plan on it any time soon. So I am not writing this as a bitter fan that watched him team lose last night.)