Stoops = Cooper?

Yes, that Stoops and that Cooper. The NY Times brings us an interesting piece on current Oklahoma Sooners football coach Bob Stoops.

Apparently some have started comparing Stoops to former Ohio State coach John Cooper. The comparison is born from Stoops habit lately of producing outstanding teams in the regular season that can't produce in the postseason. To put Bob Stoops and John Cooper in the same sentence right now is not really fair in my opinion.

Coop' is one of the more successful coaches in the history of college football if you throw out bowl games and the last game of the regular season (which unfortunately for Coop was always against Michigan). Even when you include those games Cooper still has the second highest winning percentage behind Woody Hayes at Ohio State.

Unfortunately for John Cooper, the games I'm asking you to 'throw out' are the two most important of the season. Essentially, the reason that John Cooper is no longer the coach of The Ohio State University football team is simple. Five wins, 18 losses and one tie in bowl games and against Michigan as a head coach. End of story.

Furthermore, the reason that I have no lingering affinity towards former OSU Athletic Director Andy Geiger is because Geiger canned Cooper while citing reasons other then 5-18-1. There was no need to talk about anything else, whatsoever.

PLEASE! As if anyone gives a shit about grades or sportsmanship when you're losing the last two games of the year, every year. No one gave a crap about all of the miscreants Bobby Bowden was squeezing through his program when he was winning multiple national titles in the '90's!

Anyway, here is what Bob Stoops had to say when asked about comparisons to John Cooper:

“Did he win a national championship?”

No Bobby, I guess he didn't. I also don't think in general that pointing out the faults of other coaches to prove your worth is generally the most classy way to conduct yourself.

I would also remind you that your national title came eight years ago. For better or worse, this is a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately business. Phil Fulmer is still trying to ride out the national title he won ten years ago. The difference between Fat Phil and Bob Stoops is that Phil wins bowl games. Not all of them, but some.

Here's more spin from Stoops...

"It’s what’s your perspective?” he said. “If the Big 12 championship game isn’t a big game anymore or beating Texas isn’t a big game and winning Big 12 championships isn’t significant, we’ve done pretty well if that’s how everybody looks at it.”

Stoops brings up a good point. The main difference between John Cooper and Bob Stoops is that while both have been futile in bowl games, at least Oklahoma has taken care of their chief rival, Texas. That in and of itself is why you can't put Cooper and Stoops in the same sentence.

His comments refer to a larger issue in college football. Sure, winning the conference and beating your rival are important. Crossing those two items off your list every year should keep you in the head chair for quite some time. Eventually though, people expect more.

At some point, losing to Boise State and West Virginia does not sit well. It's that simple.

And to digress slightly, it is amazing to me that some are now projecting the Big 12 as perhaps heir to the throne. I do not doubt for a second that the Big 12 is a very strong conference.

What I question is why Ohio State losing in the title game means that the entire Big 10 stinks while Oklahoma losing in their BCS bowl game is not considered a knock on the Big XII?