Yeah, but also, Ohio St. was up for the first 3 quarters or so.

Also, don't forget last week when USC wiped the floor with whoever they played last week and dropped like 4 places

Uh, last week USC squeaked by Arizona, who is terrible.

Rivals.com College Football - BCS: LSU best of the once-beaten teams

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5...72055362vm.gif

PAC ::clown:: 10

Hell, the only reason more SEC teams aren't higher ranks than they are is because SEC teams always beat each other up. SEC is the toughest conference, why lie.

Yay for USC! I'm not sure how convincing of a win this is (38-0 USC vs Notre Dame), but the voters seem to think so.

I can't believe Cal lost to UCLA. Way to destroy the Pac-10 credibility.

Beat the Ducks!

Uh, West Virginia went from 9th to 7th in the BCS. And last week was the first BCS rankings so...

And you're angry that Boston College moved up from #3 to #2 after #2 lost?? I mean, what, do you just want #2 to be blank? Do you think a team deserves to move ahead of Boston College even though they didn't have an opportunity to win a game?

ASU went from 8th to 4th. The teams they jumped were: USF (who lost), Kentucky (who lost and now has 2 losses to ASU's), South Carolina (same as Kentucky), and Oklahoma (who barely squeaked by one of the worst teams in college football and has played 3 teams that already have 6 or more losses).

West Virginia dropped further than LSU because most people still feel LSU is one of, if not the, best team in the country, as is evidenced by them still getting first place votes in the AP poll despite having a loss. West Virginia lost to the only good team it has played all year long and can still get to the title game.

the Cal - UCLA game was quite interesting to watch. there were some really bad calls for both teams and also the interception at 1:45 by UCLA sealed the deal.

Credit to Longshore to still play...essentially on one leg

I know WVU moved up this week. I just don't get how these rankings are justified. Examples:

(pre-BCS)
#5 WVU loses to #18 South Florida, WVU drops to #13.

(in-between BCS)
#1 LSU loses to #17 Kentucky, LSU drops to #4.

(BCS)
#2 South Florida loses to unranked Rutgers, South Florida drops to #10.

So looking at it like this, it's like WVU lost to an unranked team or South Florida lost to a ranked team. I just don't understand how LSU got so freakin lucky and only dropped to #4 when in reality they should've dropped to #8. They almost lost again this weekend against Auburn and what would they have been then, #7? I don't care how good they are...South Florida was good and look where they are now, bottom of the top 10.

Boston College moving up, I can understand because the team above them lost. I guess there's no reason why they should stay there, because that would mean LSU would jump them to #2.

Oregon was #10, and they did just as well as WVU did against an unranked team. However, they jumped past Oklahoma (who almost lost to an unranked team) and went up to #5. Well that means that WVU should jump up that much too, right? Wrong, they're under Oklahoma at #7. Yes, they jumped from 9 to 7 but Oregon made the jump from 10 to 5.

Also, where's the love for Rutgers? I see some teams on the Top 25 BCS standings that have had 2 losses, yet Rutgers beat the #2 team and is nowhere to be found.

You know what though, if any of these teams were to lose in the next few weeks then none of this would matter because you wouldn't see them on the top 10 (except maybe Ohio State and Boston College).

Also, I see Kansas making a big jump soon if they keep winning since they're one of the few teams still undefeated. Too bad Hawaii can't get that same treatment.

LSU got "lucky" in that its loss came against a ranked and surprisingly strong conference rival in Kentucky after three periods of overtime. If ever there was a loss that could be considered "good", it would be this one, and while a loss meant that LSU couldn't remain #1, the voters saw nothing that would suggest that LSU didn't deserve to only drop to #4.

Hawaii would get that same treatment if their undefeated record came against more teams that are actually good, as opposed to cupcakes and two I-AA teams, and didn't keep looking for ways to lose against that same collection of teams.

Luck or not. LSU gained a victory. No matter how you look at it in the books, it will still say LSU -- Victory.

To you saying where's the love for Rutgers, what about Oregon State when they beat Cal, who was ranked #2, or Stanford who knocked off USC.

And you also need to remember that we are looking at the BCS rankings.

If it makes you feel better Sonic, both human polls ranked Arizona state down at 8, Oklahoma at 4, Oregon at 5 and WVU at 6.

The BCS rankings have ALWAYS been flawed. They're flawed, but not so flawed that they put undefeated teams right at the stop.

If they really did put a playoff system into the BCS, I have a good feeling USC, Oregon, Cal, Oregon St. and Arizona St. would do some damage.

I think the only reason they don't want to do it is because they'll have to reconfigure the BCS Bowl games and what not.

If they made playoffs and allowed only the top 4 or 8 teams in, or maybe only major conference champions plus a couple of spots for "at large" teams, they could keep the same basic premise of their current bowl system, and simply add an extra game or two at the very end for the title game. If you have like a top 8 team playoffs, your major 4 bowls {Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange} could serve as the first round of the playoffs, with new games created after these.

I agree with that, like have all 119 teams playing it out, single elimination and then when you get to like...x teams (where x equals number of bowl games/championships * 2) Then just start putting them into bowl games based off some kind of legit poll system (no computer shit) like the coaches and AP polls.

Have 1 and 2 be the championship game.


The only reason I like the rose bowl is because a Pac-10 team is going to get in no matter what.

Playoff system (for example):

#1 Ohio State (Big Ten Champ)
Sun Bowl
#8 UConn (Big East Champ)
-------------------------------------------Rose Bowl
#4 Arizona State (Pac-10 Champ)
Outback Bowl
#5 Oklahoma (At-Large #2)
------------------------------------------------------------Orange Bowl
#3 LSU (SEC Champ)
Sugar Bowl
#6 Oregon (At-Large #1)
-------------------------------------------Fiesta Bowl
#2 Boston College (ACC Champ)
Holiday Bowl
#7 Kansas (Big-12 Champ)

(Rotate the 4 current BCS bowls around, so the year after hosting a championship, that bowl goes to a first-round game, and then the Final Four the two years after that.)

I would watch every single game. Religiously.

It's almost like you're arguing that 90% of what goes into deciding the polls should be who won and who lost. Don't look at (or give much weight to) who someone beat, who someone lost to, where, and, even more important, how good the team actually is.

I think based on this season that we could match up LSU with any team in the country and play 10 games and I think LSU would win at least 6 games against every single team.

Don't look for a second at who beat who. Isn't it possible that LSU is no worse than #4 in the country? Would you think those 7 teams that you'd put ahead of LSU would be better?

The one team that I think should be up on the rankings would be Oregon St.

They're a great team, just had a bad string of luck/confidence in a few of their 4th quarters.

Truthfully I can't answer that. If there's one thing I've learned this year, it's that any team can win on any given day. I love the upsets that have been happening throughout the year. So both of those questions can go either way. This should hopefully end my rant on the whole BCS situation.

As for the bowls, I would also prefer a playoff as well and base the bowls off of that. However...as for how many teams would be in the playoff, at least 64.

Go for all 119. I mean why the hell not?

They lost to UCLA at home by 34 and by 31 at Cincinnati. :\ And they probably would have been blown out by Cal if Longshore had played/been 100%. They would have at least had to go to OT if Riley didn't blow Cal's entire season for them first.

I'm a Pac-10 homer but Oregon State is solidly the 6th best team in a conference that has shown itself to be a bit of a paper tiger.

Oregon State I've always found Iffy. Now if you took Oregon State's Defense and Oregon's Offense...that would make a sick team.

But I think Cal could possibly get back into it if they win out...and if Longshore gets back into top shape, that possibility is VERY good because USC has been VERY sloppy this year

The Big 12 has kind of been an upset this year.. I'm pretty disappointed. Everybody is struggling in one way or another. Let' see how Kansas fairs at Kyle Field this weekend.

Thanks and Gig'em

Well I guess it is a good thing that you don't make any of the decisions for college football, because seriously, 64 team playoff field? That would be 6 weeks worth of playoffs ok. Six weeks. Do you honestly think that this year's Stanford, or Vanderbilt, or hell, even 5-3 Auburn deserve a shot at winning the national championship? I mean these are teams that are probably in the top 64 in the nation. To me, even 16 teams is too many, because that would still be four weeks of playoffs. It is different in basketball, in that basketball isn't as physically punishing on the players as football, so an extra four games every year could be fairly detrimental on the health of these student-athletes. I would maybe go for eight teams, but that is a huge maybe. There are many years where there is controversy at the very top of the polls, but after the top few teams, there is enough of a drop-off to know. In 2004, you had USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn who were undefeated and of course, Auburn got squeezed out. If there had been a playoff between the top four ranked teams, the controversy that year could have been settled on the field. Last year, you basically had a fight over who would play Ohio State in the title game, between one loss Florida, one loss Michigan, and even undefeated Boise State wanted a part of it. A four team playoff would have settled that with less whining.

And I think what you just said russ is the reason they aren't going to implement a playoff system.

Because Colorado is good? Kansas barely won, and they've played nobody this season. I'll call it now, 9-3 after losing the last 3 of the season, including the Missouri "no-lube" rape of them on their last game of the year.

The problem with a 4-team playoff is selecting the 4 teams. The 5th-best team certainly has a better reason to whine than the 9th- or 17th-best team.

Division I-AA and II both do 16-team playoffs, Division III does 32 teams. I think you could certainly get by on a 3-week, 8-team playoff (and it would end up being the sporting event of the year, I think it would be even bigger than the Super Bowl). But the NCAA itself admits that a 4-week playoff is doable, since that is what it does in its other divisions.

Additional Spam:
The problem is that, this year, who do you pick as the 4 teams? Right now, you'd have to leave off two BCS conference champions, including one team who is undefeated (Kansas).

I can't see a football playoff where each conference doesn't get one automatic bid.

I think everyone can agree the BCS is screwed up.. but I don't think anyone has a better idea. The idea of playoffs sound good- but no matter how you look at it, there's still discrepencies there.

What can ya do?

I don't think there is a real way to make anyone happy...sadly BCS is the worst-best thing we got

Virginia Tech is a piece of crap, no?