Who looked more impressive today, USC or Texas?

I post this as the USC game isn't "technically" over, but a 59-6 lead is difficult, nay, impossible to overcome.

Didn't watch much of the Texas blow-out because it was too embarrassing.

One point--UCLA is a decent team; Colorado isn't, so I'd give the edge to USC.

Like you said UCLA is pretty good. Colorado just sucks.

...I live in Denver and last year the news 24-7 was about the scandals with the CU football program. Basically, Barnett emerged unscathed, and I can't help but wonder if the scandals had erupted this year he'd be toast--I think he pretty much got away with it back then because the alumni were happy with the football program.

everyone said they were weak.

and when your quarterback can't throw a pass to a wide open receiver in the first half and you still ring up 66 points? USC did not play particularly well and simply embarrased the number 12 team in the country. Texas played perfect football against an embarrasingly weak opponent (there is nothing else Texas could have done, the Buffs just ain't that good.)

We shall see. We shall see.

since at least in their game they faced some defense...The Buffs looked like they couldn't have won a Pop Warner game.

For those who didn't watch, Texas hit 70 with about eight minutes left in the third quarter, and tried hard not to score after that point. They had already pulled back on offense--the last three scores were off two fumbles in Colorado's end of the field, and a punt return for a touchdown. There was no point after the opening drive when Colorado was a threat. Texas smothered them completely the entire game. They could have run up a hundred points if they had wanted to.

USC was still trying to score in the fourth quarter, in what looked like an attempt to match Texas's point total. They weren't near as dominating. UCLA was in the game at halftime, barely, and even for part of the third quarter was driving on USC with some outside shot at mounting a comeback.

Of course, UCLA is a better team than Colorado.

In fact Gary Barnett says Colorado was so devastated by their loss to Iowa State that they just gave it up...

My vote is for USC.

earlier in the seaon--last weekend they were blown away by Nebraska--something like 30 points.

October 29 Iowa State at Texas A&M W 42-14
November 12 Colorado at Iowa State L 30-16 ("The loss at Iowa State, we've never gotten over it," Barnett said. "I can't for the life of me figure out why.")
November 25 Texas at Texas A&M W 40-29 (Texas A&M put up a good fight, A&M was ahead 22-21 in 3rd Qtr)

Anyway, the Big 12 is kinda boring compared to the other conferences like the SEC or Pac-10.

to the next level of teams!

It simply was the only Texas game this season that wasn't an absolute blow-out. Texas ended up outplaying them, anyway.

I think it was the only Texas game I watched that I felt a minor bit of anxiety.

USC played a ranked team, so in the range of this question, they have the leg up. Texas played A&M in Kyle Field (think Notre Dame) last week and a demoralized Colorado team this week.

Texas ALWAYS has been underestimated, which is why Mack Brown had to fight like hell to get them to play in the Rose Bowl last year. And they beat Michigan. And they will have a shot at USC.

My one caveat is that A&M always has a chance in Kyle field ... always. That is the most obnoxious stadium for a visiting opponent I have ever visited. I haven't been to a Notre Dame game at their home field, so that one may beat it, but it's hard to imagine.