BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:20 am

1 Ohio St .9731
2 USC .9559
3 Michigan .9341
4 Auburn .7478
5 WVU .7446
6 Florida .7375
7 Louisville .7176
8 Notre Dame .6939
9 Texas .6841
10 Cal .6682
11 Tennessee .6526
12 Clemson .5042
13 Arkansas .4714
14 Oregon .4492
15 Boise St .4319

Rest of the top 25: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

Damn. Nice positioning for Auburn.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:26 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Damn. Nice positioning for Auburn.

Didn't you hear? A one loss team has no shot at winning a title.

-Shoalzie

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:29 am

The rankings are the way they are because the pollsters fucking suck.

Putting WVU ahead of Florida, Texas, Cal, Tenn....get real.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:35 am

Texas needs to take care of business and for blOwU Nebraska and a$m to all finish strong.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:37 am

Texas needs for the pollsters to pull their heads out of their asses. Like WVU even belongs on the same field as Texas.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 16, 2006 12:39 am

I'm still giving WVU the benefit of the doubt until I see them play Louisville AND Rutgers.

That schedule of theirs though...man, that's painful to look at.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:10 am

As things stand right now, there could very easily be a great deal of bitching over at-large BCS bids once again. If the season ended today, both Michigan and Notre Dame would be guaranteed at-large BCS bids. And Boise State needs only to move up a few spots, or get a Clemson loss somewhere along the way, to be there as well.

I'm quite sure that most if not all of the vitriol will be directed at ND, at least on this board.

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:14 am

Dinsdale wrote:Texas needs for the pollsters to pull their heads out of their asses. Like WVU even belongs on the same field as Texas.

Hell, OU "belonged on the same field" against Tejas. In fact, we felt that we literally owned the field, and that's why we were comfortable throwing all those balls at it. If we break the field, dropping the ball on it so many times, it's cool 'cause it's OUR field.

the_ouskull

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:22 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Damn. Nice positioning for Auburn.
Didn't you hear? A one loss team has no shot at winning a title.

-Shoalzie

Weeeeeeeell...to be fair, Auburn is a distant 4th. Auburn does play in a nutcracker of a conference and coming out of that with only one loss is pretty much as good running the table in the Big Ten. Michigan and Ohio State will have to lose and USC still has some toughies left. If it comes down to a bunch of one-loss teams though...it'll be another classic BCS CF.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:56 am

Not sure what to make of Texas...

On the one hand I agree with Dins. Put 'em on a neutral field and Texas is favored by a TD or more over W. Virginia and I feel Texas would handle W. Virginia with ease.

On the other hand, well, Texas has one really top flight foe on their schedule and they lost to 'em at home, fairly convincingly. Besides snakebitten OU, who really hasn't shown much this season besides a penchant for bad luck and self imolation, hey, look at the rest of Texas' schedule.

It's total dogshit. It's that creampuff laden schedule plus the fact that they lost at home in their one marquee matchup that's probably landing 'em that #9 BCS ranking...

The funny thing about the BCS is you'll see how transparent their rankings are just as soon as W. Virginia plays Louisville. The loser of that game, especially if it's Louisville, they'll fall all the way to the mid teens. It's as if the BCS has no choice but to rank them highly right now but watch what happens just as soon as either team gives the BCS any reason to drop 'em.

They'll go down like Irie at a crack house.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:39 pm

Shoalzie wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Damn. Nice positioning for Auburn.
Didn't you hear? A one loss team has no shot at winning a title.

-Shoalzie

Weeeeeeeell...to be fair, Auburn is a distant 4th.

True, but . . .

Either tOSU or Michigan is guaranteed to lose a game.
USC has a tough remaining schedule (Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame) and has been living dangerously of late against teams ranked significantly lower than any of those teams. One loss, or even more, is a distinct possibility.

Now the bad news for Auburn: Arkansas, not Auburn, controls their own destiny in the SEC West, although Arkansas does have to get by both Tennessee and LSU (both at home). There'll be a major bitchfest if Auburn finishes #2 and with a spot in the BCS championship game without winning the SEC.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:02 pm

WV did beat a very good Georgia team in the bowl last season and with all their big-dogs back they are an improved unit this season. Ya their sched is pretty freaking lame but I think they are better than they are getting credit for.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:08 pm

I know that the idea that the BCS should be a meritocracy is pretty popular on this board, but it seems to me that people are missing the focus with West Virginia. We're still pretty early in conference play. The Big East right now still has three undefeated teams, the only conference that can make that claim. Whoever emerges out of the Big East will deserve to be in the BCS.

If your true concern is meritocracy, your focus, at least this year, should be on the ACC and Boise State, not on the Big East and Notre Dame. Unless Clemson runs the table, the ACC champ has little chance of finishing in the Top 10. And if Clemson doesn't run the table, Boise State probably will wind up in the BCS.

Felix · Post by **Felix** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:37 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:And if Clemson doesn't run the table, Boise State probably will wind up in the BCS.

not if they continue to give up 500+ passing yards a game (s'up Hawaii/New Mexico State)

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:00 pm

why is Auburn #4 and a team that just went in to Auburns house and rubbed their cocks in War Eagles face ranked 13?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:23 pm

Because the BCS formula doesn't factor in a component that states: "The winner of a head-to-head matchup MUST be ranked higher than the loser."

In a human poll, you just might get enough voters ranking 'em higher on the basis of one game, but the BCS takes into account about a billion factors.

Duh.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:55 pm

You know...

There is something to be said for no playoff --

It makes every game a playoff. Some even moreso than others; Auburn/Florida, Tenn/Cal, Oregon/Cal, WVU/Louisville, tOSU/UM, Cal/USC, and so on and so on and so on.

I mean, doesn't a playoff just mean that you need to beat everyone they put on the field with you?

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:08 pm

until the NCAA decides they want to crown a NC there will be no playoffs. The BCS is paying the NCAA too much money for them to care.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:11 pm

Difference being, you play almost 3 times as many hoops games in the NCAA.

CFB isn't a game, it's an event. An event that means something. Every freaking game is for all the marbles.

So, if Colorado or Hawaii or someone like that got their shit together, and coupled that with a couple other teams that had some bad breaks with injuries or something...then that team should be in the hunt for the championship?

(OK, those were extreme, unlikely examples, sure)

But damn, some crap like that would sure removed some of the sacredness of D1 football.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:57 pm

I'd be content with a four team playoff (although I'd much rather have eight).

#1 Rarely does the controversy of those deserving extend past three or four teams anyway.

#2 The importance of every regular season game won't be lost, because if you want to finish in the top four, you probably can't lose more than one or two games.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:01 pm

You know, a 4-teamer sounds good on the surface.

But the debate over who is stuck in that #5 spot will rage on.

In that scenario, somebody gets fucked.

Sound familiar?

I think the root of the problem doesn't lie exclusively within the BCS system, or the one before it. A lot of it has to do with just too many teams vying for the title, while playing too few games to ever have a chance to make it completely fair.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:33 pm

Yep, I'm very aware that the same problem would exist, just replace #2 and #3 with #4 and #5. Thing is, yeah, it would still be considered a problem, but it would be a better problem. I don't think we'll ever have a perfect system, but the objective is to try and continue to legitimize the system as much as possible. If you're going to have the same problem, you might as well have four teams competing for the title, instead of two. The idea is to try and increase the pool of teams competing for a championship to a number greater than two. Yeah, with this system, somebody's probably still getting screwed, but less teams would be getting screwed. That's the key. And come on, how often do we really look past the top four teams at the end of the season and say "Yep, that team belongs" with a complete level of certainty?

Van · Post by **Van** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:40 pm

Plus One is all we need.

When you're reduced to arguing over who's #4 then you're arguing over teams that never would've been in the title game conversation in any other era anyway.

Call Plus One a four team playoffs if you wish but any way you slice it by bowl season's end we always know who the final two teams would need to be in a true title game. There've been no exceptions.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:32 pm

Are you kidding I want a 16 team playoff, all the conference winners get a bid and the rest goes to the top teams that didn't win a conference.

I want a real playoff system. They can even do a NIT playoff system for the suck that didn't get into the real playoffs.

Even if they keep the 12 games per season thing they can still fit in the playoffs and finish by New Years.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:43 pm

Obviously, Vito, a 16 team playoff is ideal.

I was just discussing a more feasible, realistic solution that I'd still be content with.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:43 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Yeah, no playoff. And let's get rid of that one in March, the football system is much better.

Not really.

I prefer the 14 weeks of college football that matter as opposed to the 3 weeks in March that are all that matters in college basketball.

How many times can Duke/UNC play in one season 4? 5? The only time anyone cares about that game is if they meet in the tourney

A playoff would render games like tOSU v. UM virtually meaningless. We would see guys like Troy Smith and Mario Manningham (if healthy) for about a quarter until the coaches decided to rest players for the playoffs.

I'm happy with the BCS and the 2 team playoffs that they have right now.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:38 am

In a sixteen team format all the regular season games still would count. Especially if all the conferences get a team in.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:25 am

Vito Corleone wrote:In a sixteen team format all the regular season games still would count. Especially if all the conferences get a team in.

As a whole, maybe, but definitely not as individual games.

A 16 team playoff renders this season's tOSU v. Texas and tOSU v. UM virtually meaningless games.

Under what set of circumstances did 2005 tOSU deserve another shot at 2005 Texas or 2005 PSU. Didn't they settle those games the first time?

peter dragon · Post by **peter dragon** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:33 am

shawn the thought that a team improves as the season goes on determines whether you deserve a shot

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:39 am

"We don't want to water down the regular season."

This argument has always cracked me up, though.

Yeah, it sure is a good thing that that '04 Auburn team managed to get through all those super important regular season games unscathed only to play in a post season consolation game. That worked out GREAT for them.

Yep, an undefeated SEC team didn't even so much as get a sniff at the title game, but hey, at least they got to play in allllllllllll those really important regular season games, right?

Fucking hilarious.

Really, how important are all these regular season games when 98% of the cf landscape won't even get a chance to compete in a meaningful post season game? Outside of the top 5 teams, the regular season doesn't mean much after a certain point. At a certain point in the season, most teams begin competing for the "least shitty" consolation bowl game, when they should be competing for a playoff berth. With a 16 team playoff, teams will be vying for spots all year long. Sure, with the BCS, you may find two to four teams competing for that #2 spot at the end of the year, but don't you want more teams competing in more regular season games all regular season long? As things are right now, once you get to the second half of the season, the "important regular season games" are really only limited to a small handful of teams.

That ain't right. And it makes for a lot of boring football games too, that could mean much more. Instead of competing for the Citrus Bowl, you could be competing for a playoff berth. That'd make watching your team more interesting.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:03 am

I don't need to rehash my usual anti-BCS/pro-playoff system takes...RACK Vito

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:04 am

peter dragon wrote:shawn the thought that a team improves as the season goes on determines whether you deserve a shot

And that is what makes college football better than the NFL, you have to be on top of your game for 14 weeks, not just a 4 week stretch at the end of the season.

tOSU had their shot at Texas and PSU and lost. Pretty much end of story. Could they have taken down USC or UT or PSU at the end of the year last year? Maybe. To me, they didn't deserve any shot at those teams again.

Shawn Marion · Post by **Shawn Marion** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:08 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:"We don't want to water down the regular season."

This argument has always cracked me up, though.

Yeah, it sure is a good thing that that '04 Auburn team managed to get through all those super important regular season games unscathed only to play in a post season consolation game. That worked out GREAT for them.

Yep, an undefeated SEC team didn't even so much as get a sniff at the title game, but hey, at least they got to play in allllllllllll those really important regular season games, right?

Fucking hilarious.

The 2004 season was important. Auburn knew that going in and still decided to schedule a 1AA team. They got burned, those are the breaks. WVU might learn the same thing this year.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:26 am

Nope.

They got burned because of their preseason ranking positioning. If you're in the hunt at the end of the year, and fall short, a lot of that usually has to do with how large of a mountain you had to climb in the rankings. That's another big problem with this system. It relies too heavily upon early rankings. If you have a team receiving top 5, top 10, preseason favoritism, then it won't matter how many cupcakes they schedule. In fact, they'll have MORE of an incentive to schedule the La Monroe and FIU's of the world, because they know they won't have to make up very much ground like most others will. The 46th ranked team has an incentive to play a major program out of conference. The 5th ranked team does not. This is why we see the elite beating up on the Kent St and La Techs year in and year out, out of conference.

Still, all that stuff is relatively minor.

The biggest problem is the basic fact that we have a system in place that makes it very possible for a major conference team to play a perfect season and not even so much as get a sniff at a title game.

That's just fucked up.

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:32 pm

Shawn Marion wrote:The 2004 season was important. Auburn knew that going in and still decided to schedule a 1AA team. They got burned, those are the breaks.

Auburn originally had Wake Forest, a ranked team that year, on their schedule but Oklahoma offered them more money and Wake backed out. AU had to scramble to find a replacement team. Oklahoma goes to the BCS game and AU gets jobbed. I guess an SEC schedule is nothing compared to the juggernaut that is the Big Twelve.

Killian · Post by **Killian** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:07 pm

If there was a playoff, say goodbye to any sort of tough OOC schedule for any of your teams. Texas/OSU? Nope. USC/Nebraska? Bye-Bye. That's what you risk if you add a play off to the mix.

As for Auburn in '04 and their preseason ranking fucking them, I say bullshit. They could have been ranked 3rd to start the season and they never would have leap frogged USC or OU. And the bullshit "they scrambled and a 1AA team was all they could find" is horseshit. Call a team like UConn or another recent 1A member and I guarantee you they would drop everything for a marquee game against Auburn. May not be much different, but that one less "A" could be the difference between the NC game and a BCS game.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:42 pm

^^^^^^^^^

Rack...

i mean next year tOSU has 1-AA YSU on the sked and a relatively weak sked unless Washington turns out to be back...other than that next year tOSU has themselves to blame for a weak non-con sked although Syracuse did back out of the opener (hence YSU) and I do say that they could have found someone else but with Tressel's ties to YSU I can't blame them for doing it once but don't bitch if the sked holds tOSU back...(more for the masses of Buckeye Nation)

carry on...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:50 pm

Killian wrote:If there was a playoff, say goodbye to any sort of tough OOC schedule for any of your teams. Texas/OSU? Nope. USC/Nebraska? Bye-Bye. That's what you risk if you add a play off to the mix.

Say goodbye to the tough OOC games? I don't know what world you're living in bro, but we DID say goodbye a long time ago. The Texas/OSU-type matchups happen about one Saturday a year, and one could argue that is the best non-running rivalry OOC game we've seen in YEARS. Look around - that shit ain't the norm, it's in the bottom 10%. The rest of everybody else is playing the lower level MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC teams. Think about it -- what incentive does a top ten team have to play another top ten team? None, whatsoever. With the "one and done" mentality, the risk of losing such a game heavily outweighs the gain of winning. It comes down to fear. Fear dictates scheduling. Fear of losing that one game is precisely why most everybody plays a cupcake OOC schedule. If you're already highly ranked, you won't need a strong strength of schedule. You won't need to climb up in the polls. You just need to "maintain," and then everything else will work itself out. You'd much rather play teams you know you can beat, and then hope to god you get through conference play unscathed. With a playoff, you can afford the risk of battle-testing yourself, and still be playoff-elegible. With the current system, the risk is too severe. A playoff means we'll see more competitive OOC games.

There's just no way the disgrace that is the current OOC schedules could get any worse than they are now.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:53 pm

Killian wrote:If there was a playoff, say goodbye to any sort of tough OOC schedule for any of your teams. Texas/OSU? Nope. USC/Nebraska? Bye-Bye. That's what you risk if you add a play off to the mix.

On the contrary...

If there was a playoff system, the most important games on the schedule would be the conference games. I'd envision the first way to get into the playoff is winning your conference. Having a strong out of conference resume would help the case for the at-large or wild card teams...depending on how many there would be. Out of conference games could still feature premier matchups but even if we don't see them in the regular season...we'll see some great matchups in the playoff. Most importantly, those games will have true value to determining the national champion.

EDIT--Mgo stole a lot of my thunder.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:57 pm

Shoalzie wrote:but even if we don't see them in the regular season...we'll see some great matchups in the playoff. Most importantly, those games will have true value to determining the national champion.

Good point. That's what a lot of these dolts don't realize. WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE ALL THESE GREAT "OOC" MATCHUPS WHEN IT MATTERS MOST! WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THAT?

T1B

BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

Re: BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

Re: BCS Standings as of 10/15/06

Re: BCS Standings as of 10/15/06