[Austroturf]

Garner Minshew... wow

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cfbonfox/status/1064031289932574720?s=21[/tweet]

That’s in the half.

BC

473 yards on 43-55 passing and 7 TDs.  That is both a tribute to Minshew and his mastery of the air-raid offense and an indictment of Arizona's defense, which gave up 605 yards and 69 points, while the Wildcat offense turned the ball over 4 times.  Not a good look for Sumlin and his team.

---

And Utah becomes the final team to win the Pac-12 South for the first time. All 6 teams in the division have won at least once,
with the two LA schools winning twice. Who would have thought, given landscape in college football in early/mid 2000's, that SC would generally be a middling team in a division, and only win that division twice in first eight years (one year due to ineligibility), and the North would be consistently dominated by one of Washington, Oregon or Stanford?

It was also interesting to note yesterday that the USC-UCLA game had no Pac-12 consequences.  None.  Back in my dim, distant youth, the battle for LA was often the highlight of the Pac-8 season and regularly had conference ramifications.  Yesterday, we saw a bowl-ineligible Bruin team do just enough right to keep a struggling Trojan squad from reaching bowl eligibility.  Notre Dame will likely seal USC's fate next Saturday and keep both of these schools out of the post-season.  When was the last time that happened?  Technically, it happened in 2010 when USC (8-5) was ineligible for the post-season and UCLA (4-8) simply did not have enough wins.  But the last time both teams failed to get a bowl bid based on regular season performance was back in 1999, when USC finished 6-6 and UCLA 4-7.  I guess back then they had far fewer bowls; and 6-6 teams were not a lock for the post-season.  Stanford won the Pac-10 that year and lost to #4 Wisconsin 19-7 in the Rose Bowl.

[Austroturf]

Garner Minshew... wow

[tweet]https://twitter.com/cfbonfox/status/1064031289932574720?s=21[/tweet]

That’s in the half.

BC

473 yards on 43-55 passing and 7 TDs.  That is both a tribute to Minshew and his mastery of the air-raid offense and an indictment of Arizona's defense, which gave up 605 yards and 69 points, while the Wildcat offense turned the ball over 4 times.  Not a good look for Sumlin and his team.

---

And Utah becomes the final team to win the Pac-12 South for the first time. All 6 teams in the division have won at least once,
with the two LA schools winning twice. Who would have thought, given landscape in college football in early/mid 2000's, that SC would generally be a middling team in a division, and only win that division twice in first eight years (one year due to ineligibility), and the North would be consistently dominated by one of Washington, Oregon or Stanford?

It was also interesting to note yesterday that the USC-UCLA game had no Pac-12 consequences.  None.  Back in my dim, distant youth, the battle for LA was often the highlight of the Pac-8 season and regularly had conference ramifications.  Yesterday, we saw a bowl-ineligible Bruin team do just enough right to keep a struggling Trojan squad from reaching bowl eligibility.  Notre Dame will likely seal USC's fate next Saturday and keep both of these schools out of the post-season.  When was the last time that happened?  Technically, it happened in 2010 when USC (8-5) was ineligible for the post-season and UCLA (4-8) simply did not have enough wins.  But the last time both teams failed to get a bowl bid based on regular season performance was back in 1999, when USC finished 6-6 and UCLA 4-7.  I guess back then they had far fewer bowls; and 6-6 teams were not a lock for the post-season.  Stanford won the Pac-10 that year and lost to #4 Wisconsin 19-7 in the Rose Bowl.