To be considered “good” in college football, teams have to go undefeated. But, to be considered for the BCS national title game, teams have to go undefeated and stomp a bloody mud hole in every opponent they face.
It’s the second part that the Sooners are sorely lacking as a football team with national title aspirations.
Saturday, the No. 10-ranked Utah Utes dropped a college basketball score on the Iowa State Cyclones. With a final score of 68-27, you’d think the scoreboard would tell you all you needed to know about this one, but you’d be wrong.
It was worse than it seems.
The Utes put up 593 total yards of offense, amassed 28 first downs and averaged 5.6 yards per every one of their 43 rushing attempts. The Cyclones, on the other hand, had just 19 first downs, 348 yards of total offense and did not convert on any one of 11 third downs.
The game got nasty for the Cyclones quick and more ridiculous every time the Utes took over possession. The Utes (5-0) will play a stout Air Force team Oct. 30 and also will have a make-or-break game against the No. 5-ranked TCU Horned Frogs the following week.
OU is also 5-0 and boasts a No. 6 ranking, but let’s face it: The Sooners are one of the sketchiest undefeated teams left in the top 10.
Close wins over the paltry Cincinnati Bearcats, the unranked Utah State Aggies and a morbid final three minutes against the Texas Longhorns aren’t going to impress pollsters or — more importantly — the contemptible BCS computers.
In this poor excuse for a bowl system that determines an NCAA national champion, it seems only an SEC team can get away with winning games closely and still make it into the BCS national title game.
For OU, this means not only will the Sooners most definitely have to come to play on Saturday, but they’ll have to prove they are at least every bit the equal of the Utah Utes.
Coach Bob Stoops and offensive coordinator Kevin Wilson will have to channel their inner 1996 Steve Spurrier and break the scoreboard at Owen Field.
No coach will admit to going into a game thinking his team has to run up the score, but that’s what the BCS has done. Teams have to win big over unranked and inferior opponents to justify a high ranking or bid to a BCS bowl game.
Winning used to be the only piece of information that mattered in deciding who should play for or be awarded the national championship. Now — thanks entirely to the BCS — winning margin, ranking and the bias of regional sportswriters are a part of the “formula” for “selecting” a national champion.
So, if you’re watching the OU-Iowa State game this weekend and find yourself asking why Stoops is going for it on fourth and short in the fourth quarter with a 35 point lead, you’ll know exactly why.
— RJ Young, journalism grad student
Season so far
Sept. 4 — OU 31, Utah State 24
Sept. 11 — OU 47, Florida State 17
Sept. 18 — OU 27, Air Force 24
Sept. 25 — OU 31, Cincinnati 29
Oct. 2 — OU 28, Texas 20
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
shavedmarmoset 1 year, 7 months ago
"Winning used to be the only piece of information that mattered in deciding who should play for or be awarded the national championship. Now — thanks entirely to the BCS — winning margin, ranking and the bias of regional sportswriters are a part of the 'formula' for 'selecting' a national champion."
This is false. Before the BCS, you had the Bowl Alliance which was in place until 1998 when the BCS started, and had NO computer formula which injects an unbiased element into the equation. That meant that the entire system was left to the bias of sports writers. There was almost never a national championship game that put No. 1 against No. 2 because of conference tie-ins to bowl games. The SWC champ always played in the Cotton bowl, the Big 8 champ always played in the Orange Bowl, etc.
Take 2004 as an example when OU, USC and Auburn all finished undefeated. Under the Bowl Alliance, they all would have played in different bowls. The BCS didn't bring the system down. The system was bad before that.
So the BCS is actually an improvement over the old system. It's not perfect, but playoffs aren't perfect either because they produce rematches. In a rematch, the first game ceases to have any meaning, thus diluting the regular season.
Remember when the Patriots went 16-0 but lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl even though they had already defeated them in the regular season? That first game was entirely pointless. Part of the beauty of college football is that bowl games avoid rematches, so every game counts. There is no other sport on the planet that can say that.