BCS Week 4 Standings

[CanadianChris 0]

1 (1) USC

2 (2) Oklahoma

3 (3) Auburn

4 (4) Cal

5 (5) Wisconsin

6 (7) Texas

7 (6) Utah

8 (9) Georgia

9 (11) Michigan

10 (12) Boise State

 

Motherfucker, I knew this was going to happen. Texas jumped from the 9-10 range to 4th on a lot of the computers, and Utah dropped down from the 4-5 range to the 6-8 range. They now hold a very comfortable margin on Utah for 6th, and are actually just barely behind Wisconsin for 5th. Barring a Texas loss, it looks like Utah is going to have to rely on the generosity of the Fiesta Bowl folks for a BCS bid.

 

Tennessee got dropped all the way down to 15th.

[Damaramu 0]

Texas in a BCS bowl? They'll screw it up somehow.....they always do.

Or OU will screw it up for them like last year by losing and stealing the at-large bid Texas was going to get. Hehe.

[CanadianChris 0]

Texas in a BCS bowl? They'll screw it up somehow.....they always do.

Or OU will screw it up for them like last year by losing and stealing the at-large bid Texas was going to get. Hehe.

That better not fucking happen, or we're going to see the Big XII North champion in a BCS bowl. Potentially with a 7-5 record. I may have an anyeurism.

[Bored 0]

Even though the game will be Austin I'd bet good money that Texas loses to A&M.

[iggymcfly 0]

I still think that Utah's fine for now. The Fiesta Bowl wants them, so unless there are two at large teams in the top four, they should get their BCS berth.

 

If they want to avoid that circumstance, Utah should actually be cheering for Auburn this weekend, because if the Tigers lose to Georgia, they'll still win the SEC and get an automatic berth, but the Dawgs should move up quite a bit, and actually get within range of joining Cal in the top four.

[CanadianChris 0]

Not to nitpick or anything, but Auburn would still have to beat Tennessee in the SEC title game to get an automatic berth.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

The head of the Liberty Bowl is making a stink about how they support the Mountain West and it's not fair that a BCS bowl game will get to "steal" Utah away. I can think of about 13 million reasons why Utah would disagree with that position.

[Bored 0]

10 (12) Boise State

I didn't even notice this until I was looking at the full Top 25. What's amazing is the reason why they are so high is the computers. Here's what the Top 10 is by just using the computer averages:

 

1. Oklahoma

2. USC

3. Auburn

4. California

5. Texas

6t. Boise State

6t. Arizona State

8. Utah

9. Wisconsin

10. Michigan

 

Everyone complains about the voter polls, with good reason, but are BSU and ASU really better than only five teams in the entire country? The problem is the practice of throwing out the highest and lowest computer ranking. This ain't figure skating, if your going to have all these computer formuals they should all be counted.

[2GOLD 0]

Boise State and Utah are screwed.

You could have two undefeated teams miss a major bowl while Cal, Texas, and Arizona State would get the nod.

 

Sorry, the BCS is still proving it's completely worthless and the National Champion will always be a paper champion no matter what.

[franchise632 0]

Everyone complains about the voter polls, with good reason, but are BSU and ASU really better than only five teams in the entire country? The problem is the practice of throwing out the highest and lowest computer ranking. This ain't figure skating, if your going to have all these computer formuals they should all be counted.

ASU no but BSU is a very good team. Utah will be in the Fiesta Bowl barring a loss before the end of the season.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Arizona State did beat #23 UTEP and #19 Iowa. Granted, they got whipped by #5 California and #1 USC but it's hard to not be surprised by that. Although the other teams they've beaten: Northwestern, Oregon State, Oregon, UCLA, and Stanford haven't been that great.

 

Boise State's slaughtered their opponents but hasn't faced any real stiff competition aside from #23 UTEP. In Arizona State's defense, they've played four ranked teams vs. BSU's one. Tulsa and Southern Methodist are both 2-7 so beating them doesn't mean much. Idaho is 3-7 and has not been good this season. Fresno State has only been their toughest competition and they are 5-3.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Neither of them deserve to be in sniffing distance of a BCS game, and I think that's pretty clear. Boise's good but they'd probably be fortunate to be a 7-4 team in almost any of the BCS conferences. I'll take them in a one-off with a mid-level major conference team, but not week after week after week.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Some of these rankings are somewhat surprising...

 

Boise State: 14/13/6/12 but they currently rank 10th.

Virginia Tech: 16/16/16/20 but they currently rank 18th.

Arizona State: 20/20/7/18 but they currently rank 16th.

Notre Dame: 24/28/24/Unranked but they currently rank 25th.

[iggymcfly 0]

The reason ASU and Boise State are rankes do high is that the computers can't count margin of victory. The big difference between Utah and Boise is that Utah's been dominant while Boise's nearly lost to the likes of Tulsa and BYU. However, they have similar wins and both have an undefeated record.

 

Meanwhile, ASU's only lost to Cal and USC who are both top four. The only reason they're ranked so lowly in the polls is that they were down 42-7 at the half to the Trojans, and they got shutout by the Golden Bears.

[CanadianChris 0]

Some of these rankings are somewhat surprising...

 

Boise State: 14/13/6/12 but they currently rank 10th.

Virginia Tech: 16/16/16/20 but they currently rank 18th.

Arizona State: 20/20/7/18 but they currently rank 16th.

Notre Dame: 24/28/24/Unranked but they currently rank 25th.

That last number is where they were last week.

[Damaramu 0]

Boise State and Utah are screwed.

You could have two undefeated teams miss a major bowl while Cal, Texas, and Arizona State would get the nod.

 

Sorry, the BCS is still proving it's completely worthless and the National Champion will always be a paper champion no matter what.

So the undefeateds didn't deserve to be champ the years they won it?

Tennessee, FSU, OU, Miami, and Ohio State didn't deserve their titles?

[HarleyQuinn 0]

In 1999, Florida State = no. Nebraska(ranked 3rd) had a greater point differential(271 vs 255) and played an extra game(finished 12-1). FSU finished the season 12-0. In 2000, Oklahoma went 12-0 but had a PD of 287. Miami went 11-1 and had a PD of 316 and FSU despite going 11-2 had a PD of 375. Both Miami and FSU not only scored more than Oklahoma but allowed fewer points. Miami allowed only 4 fewer points but FSU allowed 55 fewer points in the same amount of games.

[Damaramu 0]

Yes but FSU and OU were still the undefeated teams.....

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

In 1999, Florida State = no. Nebraska(ranked 3rd) had a greater point differential(271 vs 255) and played an extra game(finished 12-1). FSU finished the season 12-0. In 2000, Oklahoma went 12-0 but had a PD of 287. Miami went 11-1 and had a PD of 316 and FSU despite going 11-2 had a PD of 375. Both Miami and FSU not only scored more than Oklahoma but allowed fewer points. Miami allowed only 4 fewer points but FSU allowed 55 fewer points in the same amount of games.

So now point differential is now more important than wins and losses? Now I remember why I can't stand BCS-bashers: they will look for ANY excuse to claim the champion didn't deserve it. Heck, if Michigan and Nebraska had played in the BCS title game in 1997, I'm sure there would be someone here complaining about how the winner isn't the true national champion because they didn't play some undefeated team from a mid-major like Tulane or something.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Yes but FSU and OU were still the undefeated teams.....

1999: FSU played 6 teams that had better than .500 records and killed VTech(11-1) 46-29 in the Sugar Bowl. Nebraska only played 5 games with teams better than .500 but beat a 9-5 Texas team for the Big XII championship and a 9-3 Tennessee team in the Fiesta Bowl. VTech also played 5 teams above .500 ball but two were 7-5 and one was 8-4.

 

2000: Oklahoma beat 6 teams that were better than .500 during the season. They beat 11-3 Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship and beat Florida State 13-2 in the Orange Bowl. They deserved it for beating Florida State. Miami however faced 7 teams that were better than .500 and beat Florida 37-20 in the Sugar Bowl. As an aside, FSU also faced 7 teams that were better than .500 ball.

 

Conclusion: Oklahoma earned it but I would rather have seen FSU play Nebraska in the 1999 Sugar Bowl rather than Virginia Tech.

 

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/history/ is also a fabulous site BTW if you're into college football and the history of the game.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

In 1999, Florida State = no.  Nebraska(ranked 3rd) had a greater point differential(271 vs 255) and played an extra game(finished 12-1).  FSU finished the season 12-0.  In 2000, Oklahoma went 12-0 but had a PD of 287.  Miami went 11-1 and had a PD of 316 and FSU despite going 11-2 had a PD of 375.  Both Miami and FSU not only scored more than Oklahoma but allowed fewer points.  Miami allowed only 4 fewer points but FSU allowed 55 fewer points in the same amount of games.

So now point differential is now more important than wins and losses? Now I remember why I can't stand BCS-bashers: they will look for ANY excuse to claim the champion didn't deserve it. Heck, if Michigan and Nebraska had played in the BCS title game in 1997, I'm sure there would be someone here complaining about how the winner isn't the true national champion because they didn't play some undefeated team from a mid-major like Tulane or something.

You'll see HMW that I reneged on the Oklahoma was undeserving statement. I don't think FSU was as deserving since IMO, VTech was a weaker team than Nebraska. Also those were the only two teams that I pointed out as undeserving and I've clarified that one of them was deserving. Just because a team goes undefeated doesn't mean they are always better. What about those undefeated mid-majors? They went undefeated so why aren't they in the Top 10? Also they(undefeated teams) may not have faced the best competition in the bowl game either(ala VTech instead of Nebraska). As for the 1997 champion, I would've gone with Michigan. They faced 7 teams that were better than .500 during the season vs Nebraska's 4.

[Damaramu 0]

Ok anyways. I'm reading that OU put more ground between themselves and Auburn but then I'm looking at it and it looks like Auburn gained on them. Hmmm........

[CanadianChris 0]

Ok anyways. I'm reading that OU put more ground between themselves and Auburn but then I'm looking at it and it looks like Auburn gained on them. Hmmm........

OU picked up about .02 on Auburn.

[Damaramu 0]

Ok anyways. I'm reading that OU put more ground between themselves and Auburn but then I'm looking at it and it looks like Auburn gained on them. Hmmm........

OU picked up about .02 on Auburn.

Uh-oh everyone stand back! This race just got out of reach for Auburn!

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

That's not actually true. If Auburn wins out, they will have a very good chance at leaping OU, especially in the computers. Go back to your thread before this one goes to hell.

[therealworldschampion 0]

So the undefeateds didn't deserve to be champ the years they won it?

Tennessee, FSU, OU, Miami, and Ohio State didn't deserve their titles?

 

The BCS has probably only gotten the national title game right in 2 years, 1999 and 2002. Tennessee should've played Ohio State in 1998(instead they beat an FSU team with an injured Chris Weinke.)

[Damaramu 0]

That's not actually true. If Auburn wins out, they will have a very good chance at leaping OU, especially in the computers. Go back to your thread before this one goes to hell.

Yes because my post just wasn't filled with sarcasm. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions and there would be less fighting.