Oklahoma coach admits only conference champs should play in BCS title game.

Associated Press ^ | AP

[SoCal Pubbie]

NORMAN, Okla. -- If his team wins the rest of its games, Bob Stoops will have No. 1 Oklahoma in the national championship game for the second time in three years. Defending national champion and second-ranked Miami could go undefeated and miss out on the Fiesta Bowl.

So it's not surprising that Stoops and Coker might have different opinions of the Bowl Championship Series system, which determines who plays for the national title. Stoops wouldn't mind seeing changes to the BCS, and Coker likes the system roughly the way it is.

Wait a minute.

The coach whose team has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the BCS wants a playoff? And the coach whose team is on course to be jilted by the system for the second time in three seasons approves of it?

Exactly.

"There needs to be some type of playoff system,'' Stoops said. "Some of it (the BCS) makes sense and is good. Other parts of it don't make sense, and it's bad. They need to eliminate the parts that don't make sense and get it to make sense more.''

Oklahoma (8-0) has a solid lead this week's BCS rankings, which take into account the Associated Press media poll, the ESPN/USA Today coaches' poll and six computer rankings. If the Sooners win their final four regular-season games and the Big 12 championship game, they will play in the Fiesta Bowl for the national title.

STOOPS SAID THE TEAMS THAT PLAY FOR THE NATIONAL TITLE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE WON A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP. Nebraska made it to the national championship game after not even winning the North Division of the Big 12.

"What'll happen this year, I don't know,'' he said. "I don't even bother to speculate. I don't much care. All I care about is going to play Texas A&M this week. Hopefully, down the road they'll find a way to tweak it or incorporate some type of playoff, but usethe bowls to use it. I think it would be great.''

Stoops suggested possibly an eight-team playoff that would involve seven BCS bowl games, with the championship game being rotated among those bowls. Or perhaps just rotating it among four BCS bowls.

"They need a lot smarter people than me to figure it out,'' he said.

The Hurricanes (8-0) are third in the BCS rankings behind Oklahoma and Ohio State. Even if they win their remaining four games, there's a possibility they could stay there, which would open the system to even harsher criticism.

Still, Coker likes the bowl system. He spent four years as an assistant coach at Tulsa and seven seasons as an assistant at Oklahoma State, learning that bowl games are better for the majority of teams in the country.

"I don't really want to see a 16-team playoff,'' Coker said. "If you have 117 teams, you have 116 losers. When I was with Jimmy (Johnson) at Oklahoma State, we were a good football team. We weren't a great football team. We lost to Nebraska, we lost to Oklahoma and lost late to Missouri. We're going to be in no national championship playoff at all, but we got invited to the Bluebonnet Bowl. It's not even a bowl anymore.

"We go and there's 55,000 people, crowded, packed and we win the game. It's like we won a national championship. Our fans were elated, Jimmy's a great coach and now gets this opportunity at the University of Miami. Assistant coaches get rehired. But if you have one winner, then there are a lot of losers out there. From a coaching standpoint, I like to see a lot of coaches have an opportunity to win and their programs have an opportunity to win.''

Coker said he might favor a one-game playoff that would take two of the four winners of the BCS bowls and let them play for the title.

"But who would select those teams? Me? My wife? Maybe a committee of retired coaches,'' he said. ``There's always going to be those problems.''

Coker admitted he might change his tune if the BCS rankings stay unchanged.

"If we're third in the country (in the BCS) and two teams go and we don't, then oh yeah, we definitely need a playoff,'' he said.

[LearnsFromMistakes]

you were right the first time - Iowa and Ohio State were co-big 10 champs last year. And if the Big 10 had a conference champ game, I truly think Iowa was the better team. I am from Iowa, but not a big fan of theirs - I watch a lot of Big 10 games and Iowa looked better than OSU in most of them. Iowa sure didn't show up in the orange bowl, though...

[raptor29]

Ok, I went through the entire Big 10 schedule for 2003. Head to head in 7 games with the Pac-10 in this, the Pac's 'down' year, the Pac-10 won 4 and the Big 10 won 3.

Purdue beat Arizona
Michigan lost to Oregon
Illinois lost to UCLA
Illinois lost to Cal
Iowa beat Arizona State
Ohio State beat Washington
Indiana lost to Washington

The other thing I noticed is that the Big-10, other than the above-listed Pac-10 teams, play really weak non-league opponents.

Any thoughts?

[IYAS9YAS]

GO BOISE STATE!!!!! GO BRONCOS!!!!

[RabidBartender]

The fault lies with the teams that put themselves at the mercy of the BCS by losing a game, even just one.

Statwise, LSU and OU were the better teams this year:

Offensive Averages (per game)
OU 45.2 points, 461.4 yards
USC 42.2 points, 450.7 yards
LSU 34.9 points, 426.5 yards

Defensive Averages (per game allowed)
LSU 10.8 points, 259.5 yards
OU 14.8 points, 255.6 yards
USC 18.8 points, 337.8 yards

Colgate should be National Champs!!! (pbbbbbbbt!)

[KsSunflower]

Ok, I'm a Kansas...not K-state...fan, so obviously I have no horse in the race, talk to me when basketball season starts rolling. But, you guys sound kind of like the democrats in 2000. Like it or not, this is the system we have with the rankings determined according to a computer which takes in to account difficulty of schedule. According to the system, Oklahoma's in.

We can't throw out the Electoral College because we don't like how it's worked out this year. All in all, it is pretty much the most objective system we have...

[rogue yam]

Michigan stumbled a couple of times early this year. Since the loss to Iowa on October 4th the Wolverines have played very solid football against quality opponents. This will be decided on the field on January 1st. I like Michigan's chances.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Yes, thanks for having that. Let's eliminate games against weak opponents, drop the Purdue win against Arizona, since I think you'll concede, Arizona was weak. By the same token, we drop Illinois, since they lost to Indiana and were the worst team in the Big 10. The new record is 2-2, on par. Being even more strict, Washington and Indiana aren't that good either, nor is Arizona State, so the only good game, was Oregon beating Michigan, giving the Pac 10 a 1-0 record, hardly something to base a study on. But look at Bowl Games last year (overall record), look at Conference records, the Big 10 is much more competitive, while the Pac 10 has USC and the rest. The Big 10 is certainly a much more competitive conference, I think that is desirable and better. We disagree, such is the nature of sports.

[raptor29]

Heck, teams like Minnesota go 4-0 playing Tulsa, Troy State, Ohio and Louisiana Lafayette, and then Michigan and Ohio State get 'strength of schedule' points for beating a team with a winning record. Wisconsin played W. Virginia, Akron, UNLV (and LOST), and North Carolina. How tough is it to win 7-8 games when you play these types of cupcakes?

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

Wish it were true, but USC is going to blow Michigan out of the water.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

West Virginia was no cakewalk this year, though I will concede the others. The Big 10 has no one in this race this year. But look at conference records, the Big 10 has a heck of a lot more parity and is much more competitive. I like that, I want competition, while I don't mind it when my team blows an opponent out of the water, I would much rather have a competitive conference, and I think that is preferable and better, than a conference like the Pac 10, where it is USC and the rest a ways down.

[raptor29]

Yeah, but given your claims about such glaring Big-10 superiority, I would have expected to see a much better showing against the lowly Pac-10 teams. I think if you go back over the past decade, you might find the numbers pretty similar, across the board. The Pac-10 gets a bad rap, but you'll notice the Coaches voted USC #1 even more convincingly than did the writers, because the coaches understand that the Pac-10 is a difficult conference to run up an 11-1 record, and especially with all the routs USC put on the board.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

By that same token, OU deserves a little more credit than they are getting on this page. Personally I think it should be USC v. OU in the National Championship game, but only about ten people in the whole world agree with me. But OU racked up some impressive blow outs and one not so impressive passive blow out in a Big - 12 that isn't that easy. There trouncing of Texas was certainly unexpected, same with Oklahoma State. I wonder how different a game the KSU v. OU would have been had it occurred during the regular season, who knows, perhaps KSU would still have blown out OU, perhaps not, we'll never know. (I am at Northwestern, and a Wisconsin fan, so I am partial to the Big 10) But team for team I think the Big 10 is better. Yes, they play cake walks, everyone does, but with the exception of PSU, Indiana, and Illinois, there is no easy game in the Big 10. No one expected Wisconsin to beat OSU or Iowa Michigan. The unpredictable happens in the Big 10, and I like that, and I think that is better football. Just my opinion. God Bless

[raptor29]

But regardless, if you are an NWU Army ROTC, you're OK by me and I wish you the best of everything. Both leagues are good, both leagues win titles, both leagues put a lot of players in the NFL. Yeah, it varies from year to year, but on balance, most of the top 6 conferences are probably, well, pretty balanced.

[raptor29]

And I agree with you. Oklahoma is pretty good, and I fully expect them to redeem themselves against LSU, perhaps by quite a margin.

[Dog Gone]

I don't know if USC is going to blow out Michigan, but I will say that I've never seen a better USC team on the field. The bad news for the rest of the country is that the stars are mostly freshmen and sophomores.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

I'll agree with that. Though time to drop the Big East, without Miami and Tech, they just aren't the same. I also think each conference should expand to 12 teams so they can have a conference championship, that way it is truly fair. I think each conference should have a championship game, or no one should, eliminate the extra games. I just want the Big 10 to add Notre Dame (foaming at the mouth).

[Dog Gone]

I also think each conference should expand to 12 teams so they can have a conference championship, that way it is truly fair.

Who would you add to the Pac-10? There aren't a lot of good candidates out there.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

True that is a tough one. Maybe Hawaii, they aren't horrible, and then a WAC team. I am not familiar with all the teams in the area, but maybe Fresno State. Hope that by adding the team to a Major Conference, that will help recruiting and lead to a successful program, it will take time, but I think it is necessary, it is only a matter of time before the Big 10 adds another team, probably ND. That would leave the Big East and the Pac 10 as the only non-conference championship game conferences, and I don't know if the Big East would be included in the next round of BCS negotiations, eliminate the Big East champ, and you get three at large bids.

[Dog Gone]

I hadn't thought about Fresno State. They're almost a ready for prime time player, and maybe you could make a case for Hawaii or perhaps BYU, although any of those teams would be lucky to get even three Pac-10 wins today.

I agree with your basic premise, though. As long as the format isn't consistent, it's very difficult to sort the teams out.

On the other hand, USC is going to schedule Notre Dame every year, whether they're awesome or horrible, and I'd hate to see that tradition broken in order to improve the bowl chances of either team. It's not worth it, in my opinion, to destroy all traditions in the name of creating a level playing field for everyone. The game would suffer.

[Diddle E. Squat]

That line of reasoning completely misses the point. It may be the system we have, but it still is a horrible system. THAT is the point.

Not to trivialize slavery, but that line of reasoning would say, yeah, slavery may be flawed, but its the system we have. Well let's get rid of the whole stinkin' system!