BCS Week 2 standings

[CanadianChris 0]

1. (1) USC

2. (3) Oklahoma

3. (2) Miami

4. (4) Auburn

5. (5) Florida State

6. (7) Utah

7. (6) Wisconsin

8. (8) Cal

9. (10) Georgia

10. (11) Texas

 

While this is likely what everyone was expecting in last weeks standings, how they got here from last week is beyond me. As I mentioned in the other thread, Oklahoma made a relatively huge jump in the computer poll average, after beating KANSAS. And no one else ahead of OU in any of the computers lost.

 

*shakes head*

 

On the upside, Utah would be in a BCS bowl if the season ended today.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Hopefully Wisconsin wins out and gets totally snubbed by the BCS so it can finally die the horrible death it deserves.

 

Don't really get how Oklahoma jumped. Kansas should be worth about nothing points wise. All of the other undefeated teams are starting to build up a much more impressive list of wins than OU has. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised since the BCS seems to have a very heavy bias towards the Big XII.

[Bored 0]

Wisconsin has a very good shot at running the table so they'll be fine and still go to the Rose Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl was already showing a lot of interest in Utah.

 

Oklahoma beats Kansas and Miami beats N.C. State but Oklahoma hops them? Not that I don't think they shouldn't be ahead of Miami but just another sign of the bizarness of the BCS.

 

Oh and in advance let's try to keep the thread civilized.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Like I said there seems to be a Big XII bias with the BCS. Nebraska and Oklahoma both made it to the National Championship without winning their actual conference.

[Slayer 0]

On the upside, Utah would be in a BCS bowl if the season ended today.

On the contrary, I think the NCAA would try to find a way preventing them from getting to a BCS bowl in favor of a "money" school

[CanadianChris 0]

On the upside, Utah would be in a BCS bowl if the season ended today.

On the contrary, I think the NCAA would try to find a way preventing them from getting to a BCS bowl in favor of a "money" school

Any non-BCS school in the top 6 has to be in a BCS bowl. It's in the rules.

[Slayer 0]

They'd loophole it

 

I'm being somewhat facetious here, but I really wouldn't trust them for anything

[Damaramu 0]

Like I said there seems to be a Big XII bias with the BCS. Nebraska and Oklahoma both made it to the National Championship without winning their actual conference.

They need either everyone to play that game or nobody. It's not fair that teams in the Big XII and SEC could dominate the conference but then get screwed by losing a title game when if they were in the Pac 10 or Big Ten they would win outright. At least the ACC will play one next season.

 

And I will have to agree that this makes little to no sense. It is bizarre. It's almost as if the standings were released and the uproar came and the powers that be behind the BCS freaked and moved OU up. B/c I figured they'd overtake Miami after a tough road win over OSU or A&M not a home game against KU of all people. Weird. Wonder if they're still showing up 5th in some computers?

[Fökai 0]

Wonder if they're still showing up 5th in some computers?

They're 4th in the computer rankings, so although the highest and lowest comp. rankings are thrown out, they probably had a few 5's.

 

AP:

1. USC

2. Oklahoma

3. Auburn

4. Miami

5. Florida State

6. Wisconsin

7. California

8. Texas

 

USA/ESPN:

1. USC

2. Oklahoma

3. Miami

4. Auburn

5. Florida State

6. Wisconsin

7. Georgia

8. California

 

COMPUTER:

1. Miami

2. USC

3. Auburn

4. Oklahoma

5. Utah

6. Arizona State

7. Florida State

8. Texas A&M

 

The BCS standings, broken down number by number.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

They need either everyone to play that game or nobody. It's not fair that teams in the Big XII and SEC could dominate the conference but then get screwed by losing a title game when if they were in the Pac 10 or Big Ten they would win outright. At least the ACC will play one next season.

 

If you don't win your conference you have no business in the title game. Nebraska had no business in the title game a few years ago and Oklahoma shouldn't have gone last year. It's stupid to potentially be the National Champions when you couldn't even win your own conference. How do you have any legit claim to it when there was a team that finished ahead of you?

 

And there's not much of a point for the smaller conferences to play a title game. If there's only 10 teams chances are all the contenders will play each other during the season.

[Damaramu 0]

If Oklahoma didn't have to play that conference title game last season then they would've outright won the conference. It's not fair that some teams play it and some teams don't.

It's easier for the Pac-10 and so on to win their conference b/c they don't have that potential upset game that is looming over there heads.

 

Either everyone plays it or nobody plays it. Until then it's unfair.

[Damaramu 0]

But as it is this is the way the BCS standings should look. OU should be #2 and hopefully they'll solidfy that with road wins over OSU, A&M, and *snicker* Baylor.

[CanadianChris 0]

Wonder if they're still showing up 5th in some computers?

They're 4th in the computer rankings, so although the highest and lowest comp. rankings are thrown out, they probably had a few 5's.

Sagarin has them either 8th or 9th, which is actually up from last week. Doesn't really matter, becaause that result gets thrown out along with their first-place vote.

 

EDIT - Actual rankings:

 

Richard Billingsley - 1st (thrown out)

Colley Matrix - 3rd

Peter Wolfe - 3rd

Anderson & Hester - 4th

Kenneth Massey - 7th

Jeff Sagarin - 9th (thrown out)

 

They need either everyone to play that game or nobody. It's not fair that teams in the Big XII and SEC could dominate the conference but then get screwed by losing a title game when if they were in the Pac 10 or Big Ten they would win outright. At least the ACC will play one next season.

 

This would mean either the smaller conferences would need to get larger (would likely never happen, although Penn State joining the Big "10" suggests that may not be the case) or the larger conferences would need to get smaller (would NEVER, EVER happen). You can't declare a conference winner based on record in a divided conference. As long as there are unequal-sized conferences, this will continue to be a major difference.

 

My personal take -- if you say you're good enough to play for the national title, it shouldn't be a problem to win a conference title game if there's one to be played. If you can't win that game, you probably didn't deserve it in the first place. I don't have as much a problem, though, with OU getting in last year as with Nebraska getting in 3 years ago, when they weren't even INVITED to their conference title game.

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah well sometimes you have to beat a team twice to win that conference title game which can be very hard.

OU had to beat KSU twice in 2002 and LSU had to beat Georgia twice last year.

Beating a team twice is no small feat.

[CanadianChris 0]

That's a weak argument. If you can beat them once, why can't you beat them again?

 

Note that both teams you mentioned did exactly that (OU beat Colorado twice in 2002, not Kansas State, btw).

[Damaramu 0]

Then they beat KSU twice in 2000.

It's harder to beat a team twice b/c they're more out for revenge in that second game and the stakes they have riding on it are just so much higher than they would've had before.

 

But still it is not fair for a team to have to a conference title game. If they're going to do it this way then the NCAA needs to force every conference to expand like the ACC.

[Guest GreatOne]

They don't need to expand necessarily (though seeing Utah and say, BYU in the Pac 10 would be interesting) but every conf that has ten teams should have a title game--like we discussed the other day--simply cause there's no way of getting every team to play each other.

 

BTW which is why (well the payoff being the other part--a bigger part) the SEC and Big XII went for it in the first place.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The fact that Michigan and Wisconsin will not play this year is a great argument in favor of all conferences having a championship game. As far as the PAC 10 goes, at least if USC runs the table they will have beat all the decent teams.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

He's a weird idea that came to mind: suppose Wisconsin and Michigan both run the table to finish out the season and split the Big 10 title. Now, assume that both move up in the polls a bit (say, Wisconsin to 4th, Michigan to 8th, or something like that), and that USC goes to the Orange bowl, and just for kicks Cal gets upset somewhere along the way to finish behind Michigan for sure. What's the possibility that the Rose Bowl invites Wisconsin AND Michigan?

[Damaramu 0]

Ok so here I am thinking about all of this crap. Let's say things finish like this:

 

OU wins Big XII

USC wins Pac 10

Wisconsin wins Big Ten

Auburn wins SEC

Miami wins ACC

all these teams are undefeated.

West Virginia wins Big East.

Utah wins out.

Texas, FSU, Cal, and Michigan don't lose another game.

 

You get something like:

 

Orange:

OU vs. USC

 

Rose:

Cal(at large) vs. Wisconsin

 

Sugar

Auburn vs. West Virginia

 

Fiesta:

Utah (at large) vs. Miami

 

So we get Utah with that at large bid and 3 deserving teams left in the cold!

On top of that we have all these undefeated teams and only one game for the national title! And then on top of that The Big East blows hard and I dunno if West Virginia deserves a game over Texas, FSU, and Michigan.

 

This is all very confusing.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I don't think you're going to need to worry about it. Many of these teams will lose. The return to the 11-game season gives them a better chance.

 

And West Virginia is going to be the Fiesta team, most likely. They'll be lower on the totem pole than Utah if the Utes win out. If USC and OU go the distance it'll be ACC/SEC in the Sugar.

[Damaramu 0]

Miami vs. Auburn/Georgia/Tennessee? Hell yeah I'm down for that.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

As much as I'd like Virginia to do the best they can, I kind of want them to be in the Peach Bowl if they don't win the ACC. The prospect of a UVA/Georgia or even UVA/Florida match-up is a lot more exciting to me than a Gator Bowl against Boston College.

 

Though if Notre Dame wins a few more and grabs that Gator Bowl bid for themselves, I wouldn't at all mind heading to Jacksonville to watch the Cavaliers take on *the* iconic college football team.

[cabbageboy 0]

If Utah does somehow get snubbed by the BCS, just imagine the truly bad ass Liberty Bowl it could create between the Utes and Louisville. Hell, that's a better game than most of the major bowls would be, thus showing how insipid the BCS truly is.

 

The goofy thing about Utah is that they don't have that one game like AT MIAMI on the schedule, so they can squash jobbers in the Mt. West and beat maybe 1 sorta decent major conf. team (TX A and M) and lay claim to a major bowl. In essence U of L was penalized for scheduling Miami....they should have scheduled a home game against an iffy "major" team like NC St. or Kansas St.

 

That said, if somebody like Oregon St. can be in the Fiesta Bowl there's no reason why Utah can't be. I'd actually say Utah could draw more fans and ratings.

[Guest GreatOne]

I got seven words for you:

 

UConn, Florida State, Gator Bowl, OH GOD.........................

[iggymcfly 0]

If Utah does make a BCS bowl, I hope they don't get stuck going against West Virginia. I think with an undefeated season, they should get a chance to prove themselves against a real contender, and maybe even earn a little tiny share of the national championship, not get stuck playing a team that's almost as much of a mid-major than they are.

 

I'm pretty sure that Auburn will lose somewhere along the way (and by somewhere along the way, I mean Georgia), and if Boise was even an issue, they'll probably lose one too. But I don't see any of the other undefeateds picking up a loss.

 

USC's way too solid at home to lose to Notre Dame, and Oregon State's the toughest road test they have left.

 

As far as Oklahoma goes, OSU and Texas A&M are both way too overrated to actually pull the upset. Missouri might have actually had a chance to be a trap game, but after the Sooners lost in the conference championship last year, there's no way they let it happen again.

 

Utah doesn't play anyone close to talented enough to pull off the upset, which just leaves Miami. Virginia's incredibly overrated and won't come close which leaves Virginia Tech, as the only team capable of actually knocking off a top team. Even if they do get beat, that still leaves four undefeated teams in the BCS games.

[CanadianChris 0]

Five unbeaten teams in the BCS. I, for one, can't wait to see how corporate puppet John Saunders would spin that kind of train wreck.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

If Utah gets a BCS game, of course they'll get stuck with West Virginia. The only way they don't is if the Sugar Bowl grabs Utah first, and with the SEC champion probably still on the board, that won't happen. And if the Backyard Brawl doesn't go WVU's way, it could be Pittsburgh in the Fiesta. Yikes.

 

I'll quietly let everyone sleep on both of the Virginia schools. One of them's taking Miami down.

[Bored 0]

Just realized with the way things are at the moment the Rose Bowl wouldn't be able to take Cal. The Top 6 are automatically in and then you have Wisconsin and West Virginia with automatic bids. Rose Bowl would probably end up with Florida State taking the Pac-10 spot with USC going to the Orange Bowl.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Actually, I think the Rose still could take Cal. FSU is #5, and while the Top 6 rule holds true for non-BCS conferences, I think it's only Top 4 = automatic bid for the BCS conferences. Unless they changed that from last year too.

 

Now, if FSU wins out and squeaks up to the Top 4 and Miami still wins the ACC...then it's a-spankin'.