BCS Standings

[Flying Headbutt]

Inaugural rankings go as this:

1. Alabama
2. Florida State
3. Oregon
4. Ohio State
5. Missouri


Thoughts?

 

[dooley_womack1]

Mizzou No. 1 in the Colley Matrix, bay-bee

 

[hondo]

One more reason for the delusion and paranoia of Buckeye Nation to boil over.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Proof positive that talk of an 8-team playoff is silly.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Four seems plenty to me by the time the season ends each and every year.

 

[I Should Coco]

Without having the BCS supercomputer in front of me ... I'd guess that if Oregon wins out, they pass Florida State, because the Ducks have three one-loss Pac-12 opponents coming up.

Of course, Oregon has to win those games; I still think Stanford gets 'em. Just a hunch.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I'll be surprised if Stanford keeps that within three scores, Coco. That offense is not working.

 

[Mark2010]

If Stanford can keep the game between the tackles, it can use it's size and strength and beat Oregon. If the game turns into a track meet in the open field, no one can stay up with the Ducks.

FSU got a big boost from beating a Top 10 team on the road. It has Miami and Florida still ahead. Oregon has Stanford and UCLA ahead, so if it can beat them, it will pick up points.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Ohio State probably has the easiest road to an undefeated regular season. That certainly doesn't mean they're the best team in the country.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

You're right, Mizzou. But under the BCS setup, an undefeated team from one of the power conferences will always wind up ahead of a one-loss rival in the standings. Hell, if Notre Dame did last year, Ohio State will this year. Next year, of course, the selection committee will put all these controversies to bed, I'm sure.

 

[heyabbott]

Maybe Maryland didn't **** up completely by going to the Big 10. ACC has 3 teams in the top 10 and 4 in the top 15. Big10 has 1 in the top 20

 

[I Should Coco]

I'll be surprised if Stanford keeps that within three scores, Coco. That offense is not working.

It was a bit strange how reluctant they were to let Hogan do ANYTHING against UCLA. I know Stanford is all about smash-mouth football, but at some point you need your QB to win a game or two for you. Like, oh, at the end of the Utah game, for example ...

 

[Mizzougrad96]

You're right, Mizzou. But under the BCS setup, an undefeated team from one of the power conferences will always wind up ahead of a one-loss rival in the standings. Hell, if Notre Dame did last year, Ohio State will this year. Next year, of course, the selection committee will put all these controversies to bed, I'm sure.

The problem is that the SEC is so much better than any of the other conferences. I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools. If Alabama loses a game, there will still be a way for them to make the title game, but if Oregon stumbles once, I can't imagine them being able to stay in the mix unless something crazy happens.

When the SEC has dominated the way it has for the better part of the last decade, I think to an extent, that's understandable.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools.

If by "outrage" you mean "ticker-tape parades in the streets and champagne in the bars," that's correct.

People would LOVE the SEC getting left out. OK, not the people of the Confederacy maybe, but everyone else would eat that up.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools.

If by "outrage" you mean "ticker-tape parades in the streets and champagne in the bars," that's correct.

People would LOVE the SEC getting left out. OK, not the people of the Confederacy maybe, but everyone else would eat that up.

Oh, I can't even tell you how much I would celebrate a Oregon-FSU title game. But if that happens, we'll be hearing all week, "Oh Alabama would beat either of them by three touchdowns..."

 

[doctorx]

If Stanford can keep the game between the tackles, it can use it's size and strength and beat Oregon. If the game turns into a track meet in the open field, no one can stay up with the Ducks.

FSU got a big boost from beating a Top 10 team on the road. It has Miami and Florida still ahead. Oregon has Stanford and UCLA ahead, so if it can beat them, it will pick up points.

Florida will hurt FSU's strength of schedule.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Florida State and Miami will both lose to somebody unexpectedly. I think this Oregon team is the best its had, but the schedule is still pretty tough...

 

[User 11148]

You're right, Mizzou. But under the BCS setup, an undefeated team from one of the power conferences will always wind up ahead of a one-loss rival in the standings. Hell, if Notre Dame did last year, Ohio State will this year. Next year, of course, the selection committee will put all these controversies to bed, I'm sure.

The problem is that the SEC is so much better than any of the other conferences. I think the outrage will come if a team like Alabama stumbles once and we have a national title game between two non-SEC schools. If Alabama loses a game, there will still be a way for them to make the title game, but if Oregon stumbles once, I can't imagine them being able to stay in the mix unless something crazy happens.

When the SEC has dominated the way it has for the better part of the last decade, I think to an extent, that's understandable.

To some degree, though, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The SEC has dominated the national-championship picture, in part, because it's had so many more chances. And it's had so many more chances, in part, because it's come to dominate the national-championship conversation. No other conference really can pencil in a title game representative the way the SEC can. Which is fine ... except that penciling in results, in part, from the fact that in the past the SEC has been able to pencil in one-loss teams. You have A being used to justify B when, at least in part, B has led to A.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Florida, Alabama and LSU are three schools that have been given the benefit of the doubt and been sent to the national title game despite having losses and they've rewarded those who gave them a chance by winning... If Oklahoma and Ohio State would win a little more often maybe it wouldn't be seen as being so one-sided in favor of the SEC.

 

[User 11148]

Florida, Alabama and LSU are three schools that have been given the benefit of the doubt and been sent to the national title game despite having losses and they've rewarded those who gave them a chance by winning... If Oklahoma and Ohio State would win a little more often maybe it wouldn't be seen as being so one-sided in favor of the SEC.

Yes, they've vindicated those who've given them the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean other teams wouldn't have done the same thing. There are no/comparatively few instances in which other teams have been given similar consideration, so the SEC teams' exploiting that consideration really shouldn't be used to justify its continuance.

It'd be like saying to someone, "When I've given someone from X the benefit of the doubt, I haven't regretted it. You, on the other hand, are not from X, and I've never given anyone who's not from X the benefit of the doubt. That's why I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because history suggests I'm better off if I only do that for someone from X."

It's not a major thing with me ... I totally get that the SEC is the strongest conference, and usually a one-loss SEC team really is one of the top two or three teams in the country ... but that heuristic is, to me, like zero-tolerance policies ... a method for the avoidance of (rather than the exercise of) judgement.