BCS a huge joke ... AGAIN!

[fearlessone]

Besides the obvious weak undefeated teams being overanked, i.e. Boise St. and Louisville, how can Cal be ahead of Tennessee? UT whipped Cal, thet each have one loss and UT has played more top 10 teams than Cal so this system has to go.

Lets not forget that Rutgers played Howard and other "tough" opponents to earn spot 14.

Definetely a joke!!!

What say ye?


Rk Team Rec Rk Pts % Rk Pts % Rk Avg Avg Pre

1. Ohio St. (8-0) 1 2848 1.008 1 1575 1.016 3 .930 .9764 1
2. Michigan (8-0) 2 2685 .950 3 1454 .938 1T .970 .9451 3
3. USC (6-0) 3 2640 .935 2 1469 .948 1T .970 .9430 2
4. West Virginia (7-0) 4 2480 .878 4 1394 .899 14 .510 .7551 5
5. Auburn (7-1) 7 2114 .748 7 1178 .760 6 .750 .7466 4
6. Florida (6-1) 9 1969 .697 8 1051 .678 4 .820 .7261 6
7. Texas (7-1) 5 2342 .829 5 1308 .844 13 .520 .7241 9
8. Louisville (7-0) 6 2164 .766 6 1205 .777 9 .640 .7215 7
9. Notre Dame (6-1) 10 1830 .648 10 1019 .657 8 .730 .6730 8
10. California (7-1) 11 1733 .613 12 923 .595 5 .810 .6680 10
11. Tennessee (6-1) 8 1981 .701 9 1046 .675 11 .590 .6497 11
12. Clemson (7-1) 12 1729 .612 11 962 .621 15 .440 .5525 12
13. Arkansas (6-1) 14 1342 .475 14 700 .452 10 .600 .5051 13
14. Rutgers (7-0) 15 1129 .400 16 557 .359 7 .740 .4966 16
15. Boise St. (8-0) 16 1109 .393 15 667 .430 12 .540 .4509 15
16. LSU (6-2) 13 1373 .486 12 923 .595 20 .210 .3830 18
17. Boston College (6-1) 17 985 .349 17 530 .342 16T .430 .3707 20
18. Wisconsin (7-1) 18 940 .333 18 525 .339 16T .430 .3644 21
19. Oklahoma (5-2) 19 797 .282 19 450 .290 NR .000 .1885 22
20. Missouri (7-1) 21 503 .178 23 229 .148 19 .230 .1840 24
21. Texas A&M (7-1) 23 374 .132 22 263 .170 21T .150 .1494 26
22. Nebraska (6-2) 20 635 .225 20 328 .212 NR .000 .1437 17
23. Oregon (5-2) 24 317 .112 24 228 .147 21T .150 .1353 14
24. Georgia Tech (5-2) 22 422 .149 21 264 .170 26 .070 .1286 19
25. Washington St. (5-3) 31 12 .004 37 2 .001 18 .290 .0985 --

[general counsel]

while i agree the tenn and cal rankings make no sense, keep in mind that the poll will to some degree work itself out as the teams play through their skeds. Thus, rutgers for example is ranked 14 in large part because they are undefeated. they play louisville and west virginia coming up. If they lose to both, chances are pretty good they wont be anywhere near 14.

No poll is perfect, this is why the nfl playoffs are so great, because once you are in, there is no best of 7, its one game one time.

There is no really good solution for measuring margain of victory, strength of sked, quality wins and losses. I believe that head to head competition is a vastly undervalued element. I dont care what anyone says, you cant rank two comparable teams like tenn and cal in a way that puts cal ahead of tenn when tenn killed them. That doesnt mean of course that if the raiders beat the seahawks in two weeks they deserve to be ranked ahead of them, it just means that they were the better team on that day.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

[fearlessone]

Originally Posted by general counsel

while i agree the tenn and cal rankings make no sense, keep in mind that the poll will to some degree work itself out as the teams play through their skeds. Thus, rutgers for example is ranked 14 in large part because they are undefeated. they play louisville and west virginia coming up. If they lose to both, chances are pretty good they wont be anywhere near 14.

No poll is perfect, this is why the nfl playoffs are so great, because once you are in, there is no best of 7, its one game one time.

There is no really good solution for measuring margain of victory, strength of sked, quality wins and losses. I believe that head to head competition is a vastly undervalued element. I dont care what anyone says, you cant rank two comparable teams like tenn and cal in a way that puts cal ahead of tenn when tenn killed them. That doesnt mean of course that if the raiders beat the seahawks in two weeks they deserve to be ranked ahead of them, it just means that they were the better team on that day.

ramming speed to all

general counsel

While I agree that the poll will work "itself" out as the season plays out, the teams that play in the brutal conferences should get more recognition, i.e. the Sec and the Big 10 before the ironing out. It seems that the slac-10 are getting more votes but for exactly what I do not know and the big 12 still has jerky swoops thinking their conference is tough. Other than Texas, who was soundly defeated by OSU there really is not much talent there this year in said conference.

Only a few "worthy" media members should have a say in all rankings, no instant replay officials should have any history with a school or league they are reviewing and let there be another "major overhaul" or this needs to go to a playoff system. IMHO

[SFCRamFan]

Human error always has and always will be a part of the game. I am not so sure that you will ever be able to remove that from the mix. However, I do agree that neutral offciating crews would be appropriate for mixed conference play.

I like the idea of the top four teams in a playoff based upon their record and strength of schedule. It could be done after the bowl games I guess. That would leave no doubt as to who is number one. However, some conference or team will still find a way to cry foul. It can be done, but this idea would cut into the bowl money that is paid out (meaning bowls would not pay as much). Many conferences or teams will cry poverty over this because bowl games are a cash cow for universities. What it all boils down to is still $money$. It may never happen, so I guess we should get used to what we have and hope that they continue to improve upon it.

[Nick]

Well, when the formula includes strength of schedule but the entire schedule hasn't been played yet, then you're obviously going to have some questionable scenarios. Let's see what it looks like at the end of the year.