Was he too embarrassed to deal with questions about his one-big-loss team meandering into the B.C.S. national championship game — the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 4 — like a misaligned Sooner Schooner?

Was he grading his game plan from the Big XII Championship debacle — a 35-7 loss to Kansas State, last night — and finding it hard to get past an F?

Was he sharing the U-Haul driving duties with his brother Mike, who is moving to a head coaching position at Arizona?

Was he looking for another job?

Seriously, Where was Bob Stoops?

How could the coach of the best team of the millennium (prior to 11:30 Saturday night) not appear live on the ABC BCS bowl selection show, or is it the ABCS selection show?

And where was Southern Cal? AWOL? Absent, Without Logic?

How could Southern Cal be ranked by human beings No. 1 in the final regular-season Associated Press writers’ and broadcasters’ poll and ESPN/USA Today coaches’ poll, and not be in the national championship game? In the culture of it-all-depends-what-is-is, what is No. 1? Is No. 1 really No. 1A or No. 1B?

Is Al Gore still president? Is the BCS using chads?

Conceived for Clarity, B.C.S. Creates Confusion

For years, collegeBLITZ.com has mimicked the Bowl Championship Series, or BCS, as the BCmesS, And once again BCS is one big mess.

It was conceived in 1998 to eliminate co-national champions, as occurred after the 1991 season, when Miami and Washington shared the mythical national title, and after the 1997 season when Michigan and Nebraska shared the final No. 1. And it was conceived to eliminate unfairness for unbeaten teams, as occurred in the 1994 season when 12-0 Nebraska and not 12-0 Penn State was voted the national champion.

It was conceived to minimize the human stain on the rankings, and it was conceived to include computer rankings based on cold statistics. Cold statistics lie. Examples: (1A) Michigan State should never had been able to trounce one of the top pass defenses in the country, Penn State’s, but it did, 41-10. (1B) Kansas State should have had no chance of routing Oklahoma, but it did, 35-7. Thirty-five to seven! No other No. 1 team has fallen that badly in the final regular-season game.

That cold statistic came in the final game of a 13-game season, and it was meaningless to all the computers except one.

Perhaps the best analysis of computer rankings came in the mid-1980’s from the retired college football writer for The New York Times, Gordon S. White Jr. He marveled at how Iowa State could be ranked ahead of Iowa in his own newspaper’s computer rankings, and wrote humorously: “They must be feeding the computer corn oil.” The line never appeared in The New York Times, but perhaps the machinery has improved since. The Times’ final rankings had Southern Cal No. 1, LSU No. 2 and Oklahoma at No. 5, a hard smack for its hard loss.

For the mostpart, though, what the computers now feed the BCS ranking is nonsense. How could Notre Dame have been No. 25 in The New York Times ranking, last week? Even Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White was befuddled. “Incredible,” he told Westwood One’s Tony Roberts during an interview, Saturday.

Computers do know whether a football is inflated or stuffed.

Strength of Schedule, But Whose and When?

Strength of schedule seems to be a big factor for the BCS computers and the design of the ranking’s formula, but it is unclear whether it is current strength of schedule or preseason strength of schedule or evolving strength of schedule. It is possible for teams to hurt themselves by beating better teams early and sending those opponents into season-long tailspins, weakening their own strength of schedule.

Auburn was the preseason No. 1 team in several polls. Southern Cal went to Auburn and caged the Tigers, 23-0, in the season opener. That victory weakened Southern Cal’s strength of schedule because Auburn could score only 3 points in an 0-2 start.

When Auburn got better, it played LSU, which apparently benefited from Auburn’s strength of schedule and won 31-7 — one point better than Southern California managed against the same team.

Oklahoma clocked Texas (65-13), Oklahoma State (52-9), Texas A&M (77-0), but could not beat Kansas State, a team that lost three straight games to Marshall, Texas (24-20) and Oklahoma State (38-34).

Oklahoma did not play Nebraska; but Kansas State did and won by 38-9 at Lincoln and cost Frank Solich his job despite a 9-3 record.

Kansas State hammered California in its opener, 42-28, but Southern California lost its only game at California in triple overtime, 34-31. Does that make Kansas State better than both Oklahoma and Southern California?

A triple-overtime loss in the sixth game of the season is surely more palatable than a 35-7 whopping on prime-time national television when the best team of the millennium is 12-0.

And for the BCS to have, according to one computer ranking, No. 34 Boise State at No. 61 Hawaii, and No. 32 Notre Dame at No. 55 Syracuse in their final, mail-it-in games determine anyone’s strength of schedule is asinine. Syracuse’s victory and Hawaii’s loss in a game that was not over until 2 A.M. Eastern time both detracted from Southern Cal’s strength of schedule.

The final BCS rankings were: (1) OU 5.11, (2) LSU 5.99 and (3) USC 6.15. So, by 0.16 Southern California is denied a BCS championship game, despite receiving first-place votes from 27 coaches to LSU’s 19 and Oklahoma’s 8 and a writers-broadcasters landslide of 42-21-2. How could 69 people know so much more about college football than a computer?

The Deciding Factor is ‘Common Senseless’

The deciding factor in the final B.C.S. rankings was strength of (Preseason? Evolving? Current) schedule. Oklahoma’s was rated 11th best at 1.17; LSU’s 29th best at 1.83 and USC’s 37th best at 2.67. But, all the ranking shows is that the three teams had soft schedules; that Oklahoma had an easier schedule than 10 other teams, LSU had an easier schedule than 28 other teams and USC had an easier schedule than 36 other teams. Each team had one loss but USC’s took the biggest byte.

The BCS should be blowtorched. The computers are flawed. Numbers lie. Navy had the best rushing offense in the nation, but it was not among the top 25 teams.

“You’ve got to go out and play the game,” one ABC analyst reminded everyone.

“The only thing the BCS doesn’t have is common sense,” ABC’s Terry Bowden drawled, adding: “Common sense says LSU-USC in the championship.”

ABC’s John Saunders said: “It’s dead wrong that the No. 1 team in both polls is not in the national championship game.”

Saunders then had this graphic analysis: “You thought you were married to Halle Berry for six years, and you wake up next to Phyllis Diller.”

“There’s something wrong when the No. 1 team is not playing in that game,” Southern California Coach Pete Carroll said. “We’re the No. 1 team in the country.”

Bob Stoops had no comment. Maybe he was at a rest stop on Route 66.

So the BCS has now conceived a moot national championship game between LSU and Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl. In the Associated Press writers’ and broadcasters’ national championship game, No. 1 Southern California will be playing Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Both Southern Cal and LSU could win and be co-national champions. Both Oklahoma and Southern Cal could win and be co-national champions.

What a BCmesS!

While the ABCS selection show was ending, the only bowl in front of Penn State was the one for soup as the team’s annual football banquet was beginning.

It was open to the public and when one alumnus was asked if he would attend, he responded: “What’s there to celebrate?”

Indeed, what’s there to celebrate when college football has its worst public-relations disaster by ignoring the people’s choice for No. 1.