Oklahoma Football: Big Win Proves Sooners Can't Hang with the Elite

Since the epic Longhorn destruction at the Cotton Bowl in the 107th version of the Red River Rivalry, numerous articles have been written about not only the outcome of the game, but also what it means about the quality of the 2011 Oklahoma football team.

Inexplicably, some of these articles have used this Sooner stampede as additional proof that OU is not on the same level as the two current SEC heavyweights, LSU and Alabama, and, in one case, maybe not even good enough to beat Wisconsin.

So why does an SEC victory over a so-so team prove how great they are while an Oklahoma victory over a different so-so team proves that they couldn't play with an elite team?

There is a simple answer for this. It seems an Oklahoma victory in a big game does not say as much about the strength of the Sooners as it does about the weakness of their opponent.

While it is understood that five straight national championships for the SEC has definitely resulted in many man-crushes for the SEC among the sports journalistic fraternity across the land, when did we get back to the point to think that the top Big 10 team was automatically better than other top teams? I thought that fallacy was laid to rest way back in 2006.

That season, the undefeated Buckeyes and one-loss Wolverines were universally anointed the best teams in the land, without equal, the entire season right up until their bowl games, when both were smacked around like Joe Pesci in Raging Bull.

Which, coincidentally, was about the same time these same expert "journalists" switched gears and decided the SEC was too big, fast and just downright scary to ever lose another game of import.

It makes one wonder if these same football "experts" are related to the "we're on the verge of a global ice-age," no wait...it's actually "global warming," uh...let's try..."global climate change" scientists?

Do these esteemed sports journalists not remember that an undefeated SEC team was left out of the BCS title game back in 2004 in favor of fellow undefeated champions from the Big 12 and PAC 10?

The biggest argument back then was that the SEC champions from Auburn had played too easy a schedule and, as Wayne and Garth would say, "Not worthy." 

It wasn't until the end of that 2006 season that the SEC was considered to be the consensus best conference by these deep thinkers. 

Look, we know the SEC plays some good football, but, you know what? They aren't the only conference with good teams.

They also have their clunkers. Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Kentucky and Vanderbilt emit the same cracked septic system odor as Arizona, Oregon State, Minnesota, Indiana, Duke and Kansas.

Looking at it objectively, the SEC has two teams with great defenses and pretty good offenses. Oklahoma has a great offense with a pretty good defense. Wisconsin and Boise State both have a good offense and a good defense. Oklahoma State has a great offense.

Barring another LSU home state advantage in the BCS Championship to be played in New Orleans, picking a winner from the rest of these contenders on a neutral field isn't something you should bet your kids' college fund on.

Sorry, sports writers and SEC fans, but you will have to excuse the rest of the country if they don't accept your invitation to sip from your cup of South Eastern Kool-Aid.