Fiesta Bowl Turmoil: Jerry Jones' Dream

The Fiesta Bowl is in turmoil, firing its 30 year CEO John Junker, who had guided the bowl from its infancy to BCS-welterweight status. Jerry Jones must be salivating...

It's all part of the plan

Fiesta Bowl CEO Junker allegedly reimbursed employees for campaign contributions:

"The reimbursements, listed as at least $46,539, are an apparent violation of state campaign finance laws and the charter that allows the Fiesta Bowl its nonprofit status. The Arizona attorney general's office is conducting a probe of the matter."

While the Fiesta Bowl only dates back to the 1970s (and was originally modeled after the Peach Bowl), there is another older, historically prestigious bowl waiting in the wings to assume BCS status: The Cotton Bowl, which dates back to the 1930s and is soaked with history and cachet, which is practically currency in college football.

Right now, the BCS is in the middle of a TV contract with ESPN, locking in the BCS lineup until 2015. However, rest assured that Jerry Jones, Cowboys owner and the co-captain of the joint 1964 Champion Arkansas Razorbacks, is already blowing up the phone lines trying to line everything up. After all, the BCS Chairman has previously stated that he is willing to discuss the Cotton Bowl joining the BCS lineup with Jones.

The Cotton Bowl's prestige largely fell off due to the Southwest Conference's downfall, driven by recruiting scandals, as well as the 'Pony Express'/SMU Death Penalty in 1987. Additionally, until 2010 the game continued to play in the equally historic Cotton Bowl at the Texas State Fairgrounds, which is outdoors and not as modern as the ideal bowl site would be (ironically enough, SMU's downfall equally contributed to the Cotton Bowl Stadium's disuse, as the Mustangs had used the stadium as their home field until their attendance suffered post-Death Penalty).

With the right publicity and the ripe opportunity, no need for the Cotton Bowl to wait for the bowl system to change to a +1 bowl format or for the BCS to break up the rotating MNC game among current BCS locales. As the Cotton Bowl Athletic Association originally envisioned in their announcement, moving the game to Cowboys Stadium makes BCS membership ripe for the picking.

If You Want the SEC To Expand, Why Not Oklahoma and Oklahoma State?

I'm sick of conference expansion talk, but at least some stuff is finally going down to make it interesting.

Many, like Tony Barnhart, wonder if the SEC should get ahead of the curve and look to expand, while also trying to argue that we need to get the Texas schools brought in if expansion is inevitable.

I don't really think we need to expand yet, but Texas doesn't seem to want to come here (A&M does, but their not controlling the situation).

Given that, why not take Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? While Oklahoma City isn't a huge market for media, Oklahoma is a marketable brand nationwide. And the cowpokes are a nice tag along, and we could get all of T. Boone Pickens money.

Chaos In Tejas

I said in this post last week that Texas' loss to Texas Tech does not have the same weight as Texas beating Oklahoma. If you're not going to include Texas Tech and consider ranking them above both Oklahoma and Texas (and I can't find anyone outside of Mike Leach that would do this), then their defeat of Texas is not as important as Texas beating Oklahoma. While I wrote this post beforehand, it has become a counterpoint to Earl's post here.

This is a raw deal for Texas, but the Longhorns are doing a pretty good job of dealing with this situation. While they are sinking into madness in some instances, I think it is understandable to a point. Texas fans need to remember that the only thing they can do at this point is win their bowl game and then complain and hope the AP listens. As I said with Georgia last year, there's no reason to whine now and then lose your bowl game. Doing so will make you look like you didn't belong in the conversation in the first place (such as Michigan in 2006).

While I do think Texas being left out is ridiculous, I do not blame the BCS. It is not the BCS' job nor its intention to determine the participants in conference championships. This decision was the Big 12's, so they created their own problem. Every conference uses BCS rankings at some point for a tie breaker, and I think it's understandable that conferences would use it in some form in order to not leave this thing up to a coin flip (which I believe was next), or some sort of obstacle course game show tournament.

If this situation does result in a split national title, people are going to completely blame the BCS for it. I think such blame would be misplaced. It's not that you could absolve the BCS completely, but I think there are entities you could blame for having a larger role in creating such an instance.

The first to blame should be the Big 12, for reasons I outlined earlier. The next blame should be placed on irrational voters who placed Oklahoma above Texas. How can I blame voters, but not blame the BCS? Simple, the BCS is reactive to the choices the voters make. If voters in both the Harris Poll (which did rank Texas ahead by a small margin), and the Coaches Poll (who defy logic as often as they can), had largely ranked Texas above Oklahoma, the BCS would have appropriately responded.

Again, I'm getting ahead of myself. Everyone lambasting the BCS for having failed this year reminds me that nothing's actually been decided yet

Speaking of the Big XII...

Why don't we get to see the Oklahoma-Nebraska game every year anymore? Its a travesty that we don't. It's one of the greatest rivalries in college football. The Big XII should incorporate the SEC's rules in regards to this, where there is one crossover opponent every year from the other division (i.e., Georgia-Auburn). What would the SEC be without the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry? Or the Third Saturday in October (Tennessee-Alabama)?



How can you take away a rivalry that included the "real" Game of the Century in 1971? Nebraska's Johnny Rodgers basically won the Heisman Trophy with this punt return.

The current Big XII system rotates teams on a 3-and-3 basis whereas Oklahoma, for example, plays three North division teams for two years, and then plays the other three North division teams the next two years and back and forth.

The Big XII made a big flaw without including the one old rivalry game like Oklahoma-Nebraska every year. I understand why though. The Big XII welcomed four teams in 1996, while the SEC welcomed only two teams in 1992. And all four new Big XII teams are located in the South division. So, the Big XII just didn't have as many old rivalries to preserve as the SEC.

However, I believe that Oklahoma-Nebraska trumps the idea of a 3-an-3 rotating Big XII schedule. The next step would be to ask Oklahoma State, as the only other South division school that was a former Big 8 member, to select a North division school to play every year. And then use the biggest overall traditions from there on out. For example, Texas would play whomever was left in the North with the greatest overall record historically.

Just a thought...at least Oklahoma and Nebraska played each other this year...

It's a THREE-Way Tie, Texas Fans

Preface: The writer realizes that it would suck bad if Georgia beat Florida, and then Florida went to the SEC Championship in a three-way tie scenario, especially if the teams were ranked #2 and #3 in the country.

Some of the things I enjoy most about college football are things like the argument in the Big XII South this season. In college basketball, it wouldn't matter because each team involved in the three-way tie (Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech) would get into the 65-team postseason tournament. But, not so in college football, and I think that makes it great.

BulldawgJosh briefly posted something on the Big XII South last week in between rants against the Nerds. Most of his discussion centered around the BCS and how people yell and scream too much before everything has played out. And then he briefly gave his opinion about how Texas should play for the Big XII Championship, which I'm sure is an opinion that is held by many people because of the Longhorns' victory in Dallas this year.

I can respect that head-to-head opinion.

But, unfortunately for the Longhorns, it is a three-way tie not a two-way tie that so many Texas fans desparately want it to be. I'm of the opinion that all three teams have to be taken into account even if Texas Tech is the lowest ranked team in the BCS. You just can't simply ignore them. The Red Raiders might as well have not played the games then.

Should the Sooners, Longhorns or Red Raiders play Mizzou for this trophy?

And that's the reason why I like the Big XII BCS tiebreaker more than the SEC & ACC BCS tiebreaker. We all remember the SEC East race in 2003 when the BCS tiebreaker was first incorporated. The SEC tiebreaker states that it takes the top 2 teams in the BCS, and if they are separated by 5 spots or less, then it's a head-to-head matchup.

That would've led the Big XII to place Texas in its championship game. I just can't get by the third team, though. And Texas lost to them.

Let me also take the time to explain I don't like the BCS playing a role in determining conference champions at all. Non-conference games shouldn't be a factor in the conference standings. I thought college football did away with this attitude years ago when it eliminated the possibility of non-conference games like Georgia vs. Clemson sometimes counting towards the SEC standings when Georgia fell short of enough SEC games. (This sounds crazy, but it's true. And it happened quite frequently in the 1970s and earlier. SEC teams wouldn't always play the same number of SEC games as each other.) The idea of non-conference games playing a role in the conference standings was stupid then and it's stupid now.

I would much rather see conferences adopt another tiebreaker like the overall point differential in conference games only, something that ABC's Brent Musberger suggested on Saturday night during the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State game. I can understand if you don't like Musberger, but I liked the idea. He probably stole it anyway.

I don't know who that would place as the winner of the Big XII South, although I would guess Oklahoma with the way they've been scoring points this season. (Writer's Note: It would place Oklahoma in the championship game. Oklahoma's Big XII point differential is 24.3; Texas is at 18.6; and Texas Tech is at 12.6.)

In the end, all three teams have legitimate arguments to be Big XII South Champion. Only one team can go, though, and I have no problem with Oklahoma respresenting its division.

Remember Texas fans, it's a THREE-way tie, not a two-way tie.

Texas won't be seeing this sign anytime soon, but it might see a "2008 National Champions" sign in Miami. And if that happens, the Georgia fans should be kicking and screaming about 2007.

Sidenote: If the Big XII had adopted the same rule as the SEC & ACC, then technically Oklahoma could've thrown its game against Oklahoma State, allowing Texas Tech to play in the Big XII Championship. Under that rule, Oklahoma wouldn't have had a shot at all of winning the South division given that Texas had already completed its season before Saturday night, and was already in position in the BCS Standings.

Who would Oklahoma rather have play in the Big XII Championship: Texas or Texas Tech? And Texas, Oklahoma's hated rival, would've had the chance to play for the National Championship too, wheras Texas Tech probably would not have had that same chance.

Oklahoma would never want the Longhorns to play for a Big XII and National Title.

I'm not saying that Oklahoma would ever throw a football game, especially if it would knock them out of the National Championship hunt too. But, it does create a moral dilemma.

BCS Doom and Gloomers Getting Ahead of Themselves

Before Texas Tech and Oklahoma even played, talking heads were already discussing the potential calamities that could result from the BCS if Oklahoma were to beat Texas Tech.

Since then, the world has fallen apart at the potential outcomes that can result from the thrashing of Texas Tech. Typical examples of pundits doomsday rants are:

Pundit #1: Oh my god,the humanity! What is going to happen!?! Should Texas be ahead!?! Should Oklahoma!?! My mind is going to explode! The world is ending! What do we do!?!

Pundit #2: Well this is just a complete and absolute disaster and an example of why the BCS is a terrible system. We need a playoff now so we can decide who should really play for the championship. Texas beat this Oklahoma team and should play, and we know this ridiculous system is going to have Oklahoma jump Texas after next week. It's a done deal and it's wrong.

What most of these talking heads skip over, in order to sensationalize the present just a little bit more, is that THE SEASON IS NOT OVER.

While on your way to blasting the BCS for being some evil creation of the Illuminati, you forget that THERE ARE STILL GAMES TO BE PLAYED.

What has irked me so much in the past is when people jump to conclusions with outstanding factors still left to be determined.

Every year it is doom and gloom, the BCS is wrong, and something must be done to fix it. Every year people jump the gun, and then teams lose games they shouldn't and most of the time the problems that were going to cause the apocalypse are fixed.

While everyone is claiming that either Oklahoma should be in the Big 12 Championship or that they shouldn't, the fact remains that they still have to play Oklahoma State. Texas still plays Texas A&M.

There's still two more weeks in the season, and a multitude of possibilities to take place. Think about the situation in college football last year with two weeks left in the season, and what the end result was. A bunch of teams lost to even lead us to the end of the season debate over who should be in the championship.

So, before we even get into a debate over who should be in the Big 12 Championship and whether the BCS is valid, let's wait to see if Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State. I mean, with everyone saying how Texas or Oklahoma should be in their conference championship, Oklahoma could lose and Texas Tech would end up in the game (as long as they win out).


Now, if things remain constant and Texas and Oklahoma do win out, I personally think Texas should be in the game.

I think it is completely valid to consider that Texas lost to Texas Tech while Oklahoma destroyed them. However, I don't consider this point to outweigh the head to head matchup that took place between Texas and Oklahoma.

The reason I feel the Texas Tech situation takes a back seat is because no one is even considering Texas Tech as an option if Texas and Oklahoma win out.

If Texas Tech is not going to be ranked as high as them and are not even being talked about as an option, then the head to head matchup between Texas and Oklahoma should matter a lot more than who beat or lost to Texas Tech.

If you want to include Texas Tech as an option, fine. But, if you're going to lead them out of consideration for the conference championship, I don't see how you rank Oklahoma above Texas with everything being constant.

The most important thing to remember is that none of it matters until the rest of the games are played.

Hold off on the doom and gloom for another week or two.

THIS IS JUST ONE REASON WHY A PLAYOFF WOULD BLOW

Texas Tech is on the verge of destiny. A school relegated to back seat of football in the State of Texas has one more large leap to make before they legitimize their run to the national title (with Baylor and the Big 12 Championship still left on their journey).

If Texas Tech wins this game, and then wins out, they've gone over the hurdles of a rigorous schedule that is probably only topped by a one or two SEC teams.

Not only would running the table this year be a landmark event for a program that managed to only win two SWC titles in 40 years, but it signifies that they are indeed one of the two teams that deserves to play for a national title.

T-Tech beating Oklahoma in Norman means they've completed a sweep of their major divisional foes, which is something that the traditional dominant teams in their conference couldn't accomplish this year.

Why would it then make sense to force this team to play even more games in a playoff, just to prove they're worthy?

Winning out with their schedule is enough of an accomplishment to have a shot at the title and a playoff only diminishes the potential achievement this team can gain tomorrow night.

This game, as well as their previous games against Texas and Oklahoma State, would have a diminished value if a playoff were in place. You could say T-Tech would benefit by still having shot if they lost this game and could still make a playoff.

While potentially true, that only gives evidence to my point that the importance of this game is diminished by a playoff. It also shows how pointless a playoff would be if T-Tech won. With a playoff, they would still have to prove themselves for several more games, despite winning against Oklahoma. With the current system, they can simply lock up their division and ensure they're shot by winning this game. The reason they can do that is because they've already proven themselves on the field in their previous games.

The game tomorrow night displays the essence of college football that so many seem to be forgetting (or just ignoring).

Good luck to the Yosemite Sams against the land thiefs.