Good chat again this week. Miss it? Here's the full transcript. And a few highlights:
David Ubben: Jones has fewer question marks, so I'd definitely lean him in 2012. Wouldn't surprise me if it was Weeden, but with a new OC that's new to the program, you can't quite be 100 percent sure. The transition at Oklahoma from Wilson to Heupel should be a little more seamless.
Scott in Denver asked: How do you rank Quentin Carter so low? First team All-American, FIRST. Flemming is better than the corner you listed today and DeMarco is easily top 10 player in the big 12. You need to explain yourself!
DU: I'll have a long "Air your grievances with my list" post after we finish the top 25, but Quinton Carter's All-American status was helped by college football having a pretty weak safety class this year. It's admittedly not a perfect measure, (and not one I use to judge the top 25) but take a look at the draft boards for this year. See any safeties very high? Nope. It was thin in terms of talent this year. Carter was one of the best safeties in the country, but he wasn't one of the best players in the Big 12. I have him as the highest-ranked safety in the conference. As for corners, we'll have to agree to disagree about Fleming vs. Dennard. It's not a landslide, but Dennard was markedly better from what I saw, and I saw a lot of Nebraska and Oklahoma this year. Murray might have been a little low, but he's still the No. 3 back on my list.
James in Houston asked: What do you think the scouts will be saying about a player like Tannehill a year from now?
DU: Well, it's going to depend on how his senior year goes. The size is great. Arm strength is great. Not a lot of experience. The greatest correlation between college quarterbacks and NFL success is career starts. At most, Tannehill will have 19 at the end of his career. That's not a lot. He'll have to prove he's a good decision-maker and very accurate. He hasn't shown much to prove he's not either thing so far. And like I said, the physical tools are definitely there.
Alex in Lincoln asked: How would you grade Dan Beebe's job performance since taking over as conference commissioner? Don't hold back, now. haha
DU: I've said it before. He gets a bad rap. His job is to do what's best for the conference. People get mad at him for ceding to Texas' demands, but the other option was to put his foot in the ground and tell Texas it had to give up its media rights to the conference. If he does that, Texas almost surely leaves for the Pac-16 and half the Big 12's programs get completely decimated. He hasn't done everything right, but he's not the demon people like to portray him as. It's a little ridiculous, in my opinion, how sharp the criticism is toward him.
Orville in Lubbock asked: Beebe was commissioner of the Big 12 conference, not the commissioner of Texas. If he had represented the conference properly, he could have kept Nebraska from leaving, built a conference TV network, and so on. Instead, he sucked up to Texas. All those fans who follow teams other than the Longhorns would have been thrilled. Quit sticking up for the wimp.
DU: For the record, most thought the Big Ten was crazy when they made the Big Ten Network. If you thought it was going to work, you were in the minority. Suddenly, it did. Now everyone wants a network. So don't try to sell this idea that Beebe was way behind the curve on that. But don't forget, Beebe's only been the commissioner since 2007. Was Jim Delany a visionary when it came to the network? In hindsight, it certainly looks that way. But it's not like Beebe was the only one dragging his feet. Everyone kind of applied a wait-and-see approach on the conference networks with a measured amount of skepticism.