Columnist Dean Juipe: Trojans expose the absurdity of college football

Dean Juipe

Friday, Jan. 2, 2004 | 10:37 a.m.

Dean Juipe's column appears Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday. His boxing notebook appears Thursday. Reach him at juipe@lasvegassun.com or (702) 259-4084.

Bob Stoops is an otherwise smart man who has done a great job coaching the Oklahoma Sooners to a 12-1 record and into Sunday's Sugar Bowl in New Orleans.

But he's also the owner of the dumbest quote of the new year, having said the split national championship that will result this season is, in essence, good for the sport.

Here's what he told an AP writer: "I don't believe it hurts college football (to have two national champions). In the end, you guys (in the media) talked about it for an entire month. Instead of the (NFL) playoffs, you're talking about college football.

"It's positive."

No, Bob, it's not positive. It's not positive at all. The notion that any publicity is good publicity is pretty much limited to a publicity driven sport such as boxing, and the fact that everyone in the country is unhappy with the Bowl Championship Series format and its failure to guarantee a single national champion is far from good for the sport.

In fact, the bellyaching about the BCS -- which kicks into another gear in the aftermath of Southern California's 28-14 victory against Michigan in Thursday's Rose Bowl in Pasadena -- is telltale in this regard: It points out not only the absurdity of the system but of a sport that reaches a conclusion without a concluding game.

Southern Cal did its part and will be reward with the Associated Press championship that is determined by voters around the country. The Trojans, who came into the Rose Bowl ranked No. 1 in the AP poll, can rightfully claim to be the national champions.

But, come Sunday night, so will either Stoops' Sooners or their Sugar Bowl opponent, Louisiana State. The winner of that game gets the crystal trophy and will own the BCS/Coaches championship, as those teams are ranked Nos. 1 and 2 in the computerized poll.

One season, two champions.

It's an all too frequent occurrence in college football and anyone who thinks it's good for the sport is either trying to disguise reality or is blind to it.

It's stupid, or, should we say, Stoopid to think otherwise.

The obvious solution is a "post-bowl bowl" in which two deserving teams -- and there almost always are two that are still deserving -- are matched in an ultimate title game, a Super Bowl for college teams that would generate millions and millions of dollars in revenue.

This season, that still nonexistent game would have USC play either Oklahoma or LSU next weekend. That, Coach Stoops, would be good for college football.

Whichever team wins the Sugar Bowl would have its hands full with Southern Cal, but well-read bettors wouldn't hesitate to back the Trojans. It's almost unbelievable, but when they covered the 7-point spread against Michigan it marked the ninth consecutive time and the 18th time in the past 20 games in which the Trojans have covered the number.

They were quicker than Michigan and more opportune. As UNLV and former USC head coach John Robinson said to a TV reporter while standing on the sideline, the Trojans have an abundance of talent and finesse.

They scored the first 21 points of the game, recorded nine sacks and sent the Big Ten team back to the Big House with its tail between its legs.

USC deserves its share of the national championship. In fact, it deserves more.

It deserves to have a chance at an undisputed championship, but that opportunity will not be forthcoming in a season in which there are two title games.

And college football looks disappointingly silly, if not inferior, because of it.

archive