So we're mostly in agreement. If it's Texas vs. the field, we take Texas.
But if held to the fire and asked to name a single team with a better chance, it likely comes down to USC or them. USC's coaching situation makes me doubtful, though when they can Helton after next year, they might still have the talent for a Year 2 run with the new guy.
No, we're mostly not in agreement.
First, if it's Texas vs. the field, we take the field. Did you mean to say that, instead of vice-versa? If so, we are in agreement there.
Second, if it's Texas vs. "a team from the Pac-12," we take the unknown team from the Pac-12. There's no dominant program in the Pac-12 right now, so one of several teams could rise up and have an undefeated or one-loss championship season.
Third, if it's Texas vs. "a team from the Big 12 not named Oklahoma," I might take the unknown team from the Big 12, and I might give it a name, like Baylor. But that would depend on whether Matt Rhule leaves for the NFL or not and whether Tom Herman's coaching changes are successful or not.
Fourth, if it's Texas vs. USC, that's a tough one for me to figure. USC appears to be just better than dumpster-fire status. If they can get it together, they can be THAT team. Texas, OTOH, has had a disappointing season that culminated in a sacking of some assistants followed by an impressive bowl win. Sacking assistants could be a case of making necessary changes, or it could be a case of the HFC buying himself one more year before he's following them out the door. I think it's probably the former, but what do I know? I thought that Charlie Strong would do great things in Austin.
There's another factor that may be just too mysterious for us simple Okies to understand, and that is that despite Texas being the huge flagship university in what is on its way to becoming the most populous state, despite having a wealth of resources from vast amounts of public and private money to a gigantic state chock-full of talented football players who mostly grew up dreaming of wearing a cow-pattie orange and white uniform with a cowhead logo on the helmet, there seem to be some hidden factors at work that make it hard to achieve sustained success in Austin.
In the past 60 years, Texas has had two great coaches, Darrell Royal (an Okie and a Sooner) and Mack Brown, both future CFB HoF members. Between those two, they have accounted for all four of Texas' national championships. And both of those men left under less-than-happy clouds. Fred Akers succeeded Royal and left under a hail of criticism to take the Purdue job, despite notching a .731 win percentage. David McWilliams threw up a .544 win percentage and resigned under fire. John Mackovic followed with a .592 win percentage that included the infamous "Rout 66" to UCLA in Austin. He was fired. Then came Mack Brown, who won at a .769 clip, but didn't beat Oklahoma often enough, so he was effectively forced out. Then came Charlie Strong, who had a losing (.433) record over 3 years, and he was fired.
What these factors are, I don't know. I've seen "Austin Malaise" blamed, and I've seen overly energetic attempts on the part of boosters blamed. I'm sure there are other explanations as well.
Barry Switzer has long said that Texas is the best coaching job in America. But I don't believe him, and I don't think he believes that himself. If it were true, Texas would be Bama and Clemson all rolled up in one mighty Death Star. But it's not. So, IMO, he says that either to explain his difficulties in the Red River Shootout (he went 9-5-2 against the Horns but took criticism for every loss) or just to needle whoever is the current Texas coach.
