Another Top 25 voter (USC beat writer) ...

Scott Wolf, who covers USC for the Los Angeles Daily News, releases his Top 25 ballot each week on his blog.

Here's the link ... Two spoilers ... he has West Virginia No. 1 and USC isn't in his top 10.

http://www.insidesocal.com/usc/archives/2006/10/the_top_25_7.html#more

 

West Virginia ain't got nothin' on Rutgers.

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/onlinenews.ap.org/collegefootball_rankings/voters.php?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

 

It's subjective.

I remember in 1999 there was a lone voter who voted Virginia Tech for the entire season. Everybody thought he was a moron. Then, they played for the national title...

The truth of the matter is, West Virginia probably has as good a chance as anyone to play for the national title. Getting past Louisville is easier than beating Michigan or Ohio State...

Do I think WVU is the best team in the country? No, but I'd probably rank them third or fourth, so I can't imagine why anyone would call this guy out for putting them a few spots higher.

As far as USC is concerned, there's a lot of one loss teams out there and I would have a hard time ranking a team too high after losing to Oregon State. At least Auburn, Tennessee, Florida and California all lost to top teams...

 

It's the old cliche: You have to beat the best in order to be the best.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but West Virginia hasn't played a ranked opponent, yet.

Those other teams in the Top 5 have knocked off teams of substance and rank and deserve their respective rankings.

Is West Virginia No. 1? No.
Is West Virgina, say, No. 6, 7 or 8? You bet.

 

So did Notre Dame, but idle Cal still jumped them this week. Odd.

Also - Rutgers deserves to be in the discussion until they get beat. By the way, remarkable performance by the UConn running back against that defense last night.

 

Winning has to mean more than losing. It certainly has to mean more than someone's OPINION on the merits of a schedule.
Why worry? There are three undefeated teams in the Big East, none of whom, of course, have played each other yet.
If any one of them finishes the season undefeated, they'll probably play the winner of Ohio State-Michigan for the title.
If none do, one of the countless one-loss teams that aren't from the Big East will do so. Whoever it is will spark the biggest, loudest BCS argument yet.

 

Any likely lose - by a lot.

 

So, are you a Wolverines or Buckeyes fan?

 

If I have to choose: Michigan. But I'm more of an Ohio St. hater.

But that's beside the point, team for team the Big 10 is better than the Big East. Schedule for schedule both Michigan and Ohio St. played tougher teams.

That's the joke in all this BCS stuff (and voting for that matter). Just because you're undefeated, it doesn't mean you're good. Not enough things are taken seriously into account.

 

Team for team? Wanna take the Big 10 worst (Northwestern, who lost to a division i-aa team) agaist the Big East's worst (who you watched last night against Rutgers)? If anything, the Big East and Big 10 are parallel. Two top notch teams and a very good team followed by a whole helluva lot of mediocrity.

 

This is reason No. 4,509 that the BCS fucking sucks...