What does the pot say before calling the kettle black?...HELLO!
Bob Stoops complained for a month last year about strength of schedule not meaning anything in the BCS, because NIU earned an automatic bid into the BCS last year.
His argument avoided the primary issue: NIU had two ways to get into the BCS, win enough to get voted into the top 16 and ahead of an AQ conference champion, or get voted into the top 12.
Oklahoma had two arguably easier chances at the BCS, the Sooners only had to win their conference. They lost that bid on the field, losing at home vs Kansas State. Their second chance came when a one-loss Oklahoma fell by 17 at home against the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.
This year, Oklahoma again failed to win their conference, losing to both Baylor and Texas. This paved the way for 12-0 Northern Illinois to take a BCS slot "away" from OU. When NIU failed to win their baker's dozen game, they were shipped to the Poinsettia Bowl, opening up the Sugar Bowl for Oklahoma.
We won't hear any quotes from Coach Stoops about the inequity of the situation; Bob Stoops' 2003 Oklahoma team was 12-0, but was destroyed 35-7 in the Big 12 title game by Kansas State. Despite the loss, Oklahoma was granted a spot in the BCS title game. Surely then, it would only be fair for NIU to retain their BCS spot instead of Oklahoma in 2013. That won't happen, and NIU won't complain about it. They had their shot at the BCS, and they have the class to blame themselves instead of blaming the system.
Outside of NIU, there were plenty of more deserving teams for the BCS this year instead of Oklahoma. In 2012, Bob Stoops thought strength of schedule should matter more when picking BCS teams. In 2013, Oklahoma had the 44th hardest schedule in the nation, according to Sagarin. Oklahoma was 4-2 against Sagarin top 50 teams, but only played 2 teams on the final BCS ranking, finishing 1-1 in those games.
The following teams were more deserving than Oklahoma (I included SEC teams because if Stoops is going to complain about a mid-major getting in due to BCS rules, I'm going to talk about the SEC teams that were more deserving but only held out due to BCS rules.)
Arizona State - 10-3, Sagarin Schedule: #2, 3-2 vs BCS top 25.
LSU - 9-3, Sagarin Schedule: #27, 2-2 vs BCS top 25.
Oregon - 10-2, Sagarin Schedule: #28, 1-1 vs BCS top 25.
South Carolina - 10-2, Sagarin Schedule: #30, 3-1 vs BCS top 25.
Missouri - 11-2, Sagarin Schedule: #31, 2-2 vs BCS top 25.
Oklahoma State - 10-2, Sagarin Schedule: #38, 1-1 vs BCS top 25.
Each team, has as many losses, or one more loss than Oklahoma on a more difficult schedule (Stoops complained of voters just looking at the loss column without paying attention to schedule strength in 2012). If Stoops had any integrity, he would decline the invitation and reward a PAC-12 team for their tough schedule. It was what he advocated for last year. His comments this year:
"They don’t give these games out, you get there by winning... Everyone kept grinding and kept fighting … No
Of course, no mention of strength of schedule, making it another another case of coach hypocrisy:
coaches run up the score but cry about sportsmanship when facing a blowout,
coaches question a kid's character for transferring while soliciting transfers to increase talent on their team
and they cry about the flaws of the bowl system, but only when they find themselves on the outside looking in.
This year, Arizona State, Oregon and Oklahoma State find themselves on the outside, each more deserving the honor of the Sugar Bowl than Oklahoma.
Oklahoma and their hypocrite coach however DO deserve every bit of what Alabama is going to do to them in January.