cvsooner
11/25/2008, 02:50 PM
Turnabout Fair Play for Texas (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122747403752551393.html#articleTabs_comments%26a rticleTabs%3Darticle)
As Oklahoma Creeps Closer in BCS Standings, Schadenfreude for Fans Put Off by Longhorns' Lobbying in 2004
By DARREN EVERSON
It took a while, but justice is finally being done. Karma is coming back to bite the Texas Longhorns.
In 2004, as California fans and others with long memories surely recall, Texas leapfrogged Cal for a Rose Bowl berth as Texas coach Mack Brown shamelessly lobbied the pollsters. While coaches understandably must advocate on their teams' behalf, whenever they lobby for BCS berths, they inherently lobby against and put down other teams. Mr. Brown wasn't too subtle in his implications about the Bears' relative worth.
The negative campaign worked. Poor Cal missed out on their first Rose appearance since 1959 and trudged off to the Holiday Bowl. Their crime? Winning by only 10 against a respectable Southern Mississippi on the road in their regular-season finale.
The politicking has geared up again this season. And this time, Texas could wind up as the wronged party.
Texas coach Mack Brown now finds himself on the other end of an ugly game of lobbying.
Oklahoma crept closer to its Red River rival in the latest Bowl Championship Series standings, and the inside track between the two to reach the national-title game. The Longhorns now rank No. 2 in the BCS, with a slight edge over the No. 3 Sooners. But regardless of how the raging Texas-Oklahoma argument turns out, the mere existence of this debate represents a fascinating turn of fate. Now Texas must sweat through a week of posturing and pleading.
Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops fired first. "Obviously, now we're in the mix with everybody," he said after the Sooners' 65-21 demolition Saturday of former No. 2 Texas Tech. On the logic of voting Oklahoma ahead of the Longhorns, who beat the Sooners Oct. 11 on a neutral field: "If you can't do that because they beat us, then you've got to keep Texas Tech in front of Texas. What's logical for one is logical for the other." On the Sooners' performance against the Red Raiders: "I don't know what else, what other style points you're looking for."
That last statement contains the magic words. Oklahoma's rout clearly scored style points with Associated Press voters, who let the Sooners overtake Texas, as well as in the USA Today and Harris Interactive balloting, which are relevant to the BCS standings. The Sooners entered Saturday trailing Texas in all three, plus the BCS race. Next Sunday's BCS standings are paramount, since they would decide the Big 12 South's league-title game representative in the event of a three-way tie.
By all rights, this shouldn't even be a debate. Texas beat Oklahoma. The Longhorns suffered the most defensible defeat of any title contender, a last-second loss at still-top-10 Texas Tech. And Mr. Stoops's argument doesn't fly. His logic about the Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma dynamic wouldn't compute if the three-way Big 12 South tie didn't include the Red Raiders. Well, the Red Raiders lost their shot at the national title. This is no longer a three-team debate. It's between two teams that already played each other. Mr. Stoops made an argument for parity with Texas. He can't make one for superiority.
The title-game picture could get really messy if No. 1 Alabama or No. 4 Florida loses Saturday. Assuming that doesn't happen, the Southeastern Conference will take one of the two title-game spots. The other likely will go to Oklahoma or Texas. But remember: If Oklahoma State upsets Oklahoma Saturday, Texas won't go to the Big 12 championship game. Texas Tech will, by virtue of beating Texas head-to-head. That could seriously complicate the final voting.
Even though Oklahoma faces the far tougher opponent this weekend, the circumstances favor the Sooners, down to the dates of the games. With Texas playing Thursday and Oklahoma Saturday, the Sooners have the last word. Oklahoma might gain voters for blowing out the Cowboys, but they probably won't lose any for a close victory on the road against a tough in-state rival Texas struggled to beat.
Meanwhile, Texas faces the inverse scenario. The Longhorns can expect no extra credit for routing Texas A&M, something lowly Baylor just did. But they face demerits, fairly or not, if they don't win big.
The Longhorns' plight would elicit more sympathy if not for the Cal controversy four years ago. It wasn't just Mr. Brown's lobbying that was maddening. The Bears happened to boast superior credentials. Cal's lone defeat in that regular season was a classic against Southern California, which the visiting Bears lost after seriously outgaining the top-ranked Trojans. By contrast, Texas played terribly in its one loss, a 12-0 neutral-field defeat to Oklahoma in which the Sooners seriously outgained the Longhorns.
But Cal lost some votes after its victory over Southern Miss – and Mr. Brown's lobbying -- and Texas made up enough ground to pass the Bears for fourth in the BCS standings and a bid. (Cal lost to Texas Tech while Texas beat Michigan in the bowls, but the teams' subsequent performances has no bearing to which bowls they deserved to make.)
No matter who wins the Texas-Oklahoma debate, the loser will at least meet a better bowl fate than the Bears did. If either Texas or Oklahoma finishes third or fourth in the BCS, which they're virtually assured of doing if they don't lose again, they must receive a BCS bid.
Fiesta Bowl president John Junker said in an interview that his bowl -- which ordinarily snags the Big 12 champion, but will likely lose that team to the BCS title game -- would prefer to take a replacement Big 12 team. Further, because of the BCS pecking order this season, the Fiesta should have the option of taking a second heavyweight at-large team, like Southern California or Ohio State.
That wouldn't make up for getting nosed out of league- and national-title game berths by an archrival whom you tied in the standings and beat head-to-head. But if Texas loses out, Oklahoma fans won't be the only ones smiling.
As Oklahoma Creeps Closer in BCS Standings, Schadenfreude for Fans Put Off by Longhorns' Lobbying in 2004
By DARREN EVERSON
It took a while, but justice is finally being done. Karma is coming back to bite the Texas Longhorns.
In 2004, as California fans and others with long memories surely recall, Texas leapfrogged Cal for a Rose Bowl berth as Texas coach Mack Brown shamelessly lobbied the pollsters. While coaches understandably must advocate on their teams' behalf, whenever they lobby for BCS berths, they inherently lobby against and put down other teams. Mr. Brown wasn't too subtle in his implications about the Bears' relative worth.
The negative campaign worked. Poor Cal missed out on their first Rose appearance since 1959 and trudged off to the Holiday Bowl. Their crime? Winning by only 10 against a respectable Southern Mississippi on the road in their regular-season finale.
The politicking has geared up again this season. And this time, Texas could wind up as the wronged party.
Texas coach Mack Brown now finds himself on the other end of an ugly game of lobbying.
Oklahoma crept closer to its Red River rival in the latest Bowl Championship Series standings, and the inside track between the two to reach the national-title game. The Longhorns now rank No. 2 in the BCS, with a slight edge over the No. 3 Sooners. But regardless of how the raging Texas-Oklahoma argument turns out, the mere existence of this debate represents a fascinating turn of fate. Now Texas must sweat through a week of posturing and pleading.
Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops fired first. "Obviously, now we're in the mix with everybody," he said after the Sooners' 65-21 demolition Saturday of former No. 2 Texas Tech. On the logic of voting Oklahoma ahead of the Longhorns, who beat the Sooners Oct. 11 on a neutral field: "If you can't do that because they beat us, then you've got to keep Texas Tech in front of Texas. What's logical for one is logical for the other." On the Sooners' performance against the Red Raiders: "I don't know what else, what other style points you're looking for."
That last statement contains the magic words. Oklahoma's rout clearly scored style points with Associated Press voters, who let the Sooners overtake Texas, as well as in the USA Today and Harris Interactive balloting, which are relevant to the BCS standings. The Sooners entered Saturday trailing Texas in all three, plus the BCS race. Next Sunday's BCS standings are paramount, since they would decide the Big 12 South's league-title game representative in the event of a three-way tie.
By all rights, this shouldn't even be a debate. Texas beat Oklahoma. The Longhorns suffered the most defensible defeat of any title contender, a last-second loss at still-top-10 Texas Tech. And Mr. Stoops's argument doesn't fly. His logic about the Texas-Texas Tech-Oklahoma dynamic wouldn't compute if the three-way Big 12 South tie didn't include the Red Raiders. Well, the Red Raiders lost their shot at the national title. This is no longer a three-team debate. It's between two teams that already played each other. Mr. Stoops made an argument for parity with Texas. He can't make one for superiority.
The title-game picture could get really messy if No. 1 Alabama or No. 4 Florida loses Saturday. Assuming that doesn't happen, the Southeastern Conference will take one of the two title-game spots. The other likely will go to Oklahoma or Texas. But remember: If Oklahoma State upsets Oklahoma Saturday, Texas won't go to the Big 12 championship game. Texas Tech will, by virtue of beating Texas head-to-head. That could seriously complicate the final voting.
Even though Oklahoma faces the far tougher opponent this weekend, the circumstances favor the Sooners, down to the dates of the games. With Texas playing Thursday and Oklahoma Saturday, the Sooners have the last word. Oklahoma might gain voters for blowing out the Cowboys, but they probably won't lose any for a close victory on the road against a tough in-state rival Texas struggled to beat.
Meanwhile, Texas faces the inverse scenario. The Longhorns can expect no extra credit for routing Texas A&M, something lowly Baylor just did. But they face demerits, fairly or not, if they don't win big.
The Longhorns' plight would elicit more sympathy if not for the Cal controversy four years ago. It wasn't just Mr. Brown's lobbying that was maddening. The Bears happened to boast superior credentials. Cal's lone defeat in that regular season was a classic against Southern California, which the visiting Bears lost after seriously outgaining the top-ranked Trojans. By contrast, Texas played terribly in its one loss, a 12-0 neutral-field defeat to Oklahoma in which the Sooners seriously outgained the Longhorns.
But Cal lost some votes after its victory over Southern Miss – and Mr. Brown's lobbying -- and Texas made up enough ground to pass the Bears for fourth in the BCS standings and a bid. (Cal lost to Texas Tech while Texas beat Michigan in the bowls, but the teams' subsequent performances has no bearing to which bowls they deserved to make.)
No matter who wins the Texas-Oklahoma debate, the loser will at least meet a better bowl fate than the Bears did. If either Texas or Oklahoma finishes third or fourth in the BCS, which they're virtually assured of doing if they don't lose again, they must receive a BCS bid.
Fiesta Bowl president John Junker said in an interview that his bowl -- which ordinarily snags the Big 12 champion, but will likely lose that team to the BCS title game -- would prefer to take a replacement Big 12 team. Further, because of the BCS pecking order this season, the Fiesta should have the option of taking a second heavyweight at-large team, like Southern California or Ohio State.
That wouldn't make up for getting nosed out of league- and national-title game berths by an archrival whom you tied in the standings and beat head-to-head. But if Texas loses out, Oklahoma fans won't be the only ones smiling.