Hey now. I'm sure in the last two weeks, something exciting will happen. After all, the regular season is the playoffs, or so I've been told.

Tough to have an exciting week when your supposed two best teams are playing Florida International and Chattanooga.

If Texas wins out and Bama's only loss is to Florida (or vice versa), it's tough to say that Texas is #2 because the SEC loser's only loss will be to the #1 team in the nation (and shouldn't that define you as second-best?)

But if you make Texas #3 and let Florida play Bama again for the title game, you open the door for a 12-1 national champion that is only .500 against top-5 opponents, and finishes the season with the same SEC record as the SEC champs.

So you put Texas in the national championship, but if they lose, all the SEC crazies will piss and moan that Bama and Florida should have gotten a rematch for the title.

And all of this is ignoring TCU, Cincy, and Boise State.

The BCS: Muddying the Waters Since 1998.

Once again, the Big Ten has wrapped up their schedule while everybody else keeps on playing.

The actual poll, from November 23, 2009

1 Florida Gators 11-0
2 Alabama Crimson Tide 11-0
3 Texas Longhorns 11-0
4 TCU Horned Frogs 11-0
5 Cincinnati Bearcats 10-0
6 Boise State Broncos 11-0
7 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 10-1
8 Oregon Ducks 9-2
9 Pittsburgh Panthers 9-1
10 Ohio State Buckeyes 10-2
11 Iowa Hawkeyes 10-2
12 Oklahoma State Cowboys 9-2
13 Penn State Nittany Lions 10-2
14 Virginia Tech Hokies 8-3
15 LSU Tigers 8-3
16 Oregon State Beavers 8-3
17 Miami (FL) Hurricanes 8-3
18 Clemson Tigers 8-3
19 Brigham Young Cougars
20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
22 California Golden Bears 8-3
23 Houston Cougars 9-2
24 North Carolina Tar Heels 8-3
25 Mississippi Rebels 8-3

On the flip side:

Who's the worst team this year? I have a few candidates:

San Jose State (1-10, only win against FCS Cal Poly)
Washington State (1-10, only win against SMU)
Eastern Michigan (0-11, including a loss to Ball St)
Ball State (1-10, only win noted above, lost to New Hampshire)
Miami of Ohio (1-11, winning against Toledo)
Vanderbilt (2-10, wins against Rice and Western Carolina)
New Mexico (1-10, eked out a close win over Colorado St last weekend)
Western Kentucky (0-10... in the Sun Belt)

(Also considered: Maryland, Memphis, Rice, Ark. St, North Texas, Akron with 2 losses apiec)

/The MAC really sucks this year. We really drag down Boise State's strength of schedule
//Sorry, BGSU was supposed to be really good this year. And Miami is usually much better.
///I wonder what Bowl game BGSU will be in

I'm sure the BCS Twitter feed will find a way to spin this.

IslanderInExile: If Texas wins out and Bama's only loss is to Florida (or vice versa), it's tough to say that Texas is #2 because the SEC loser's only loss will be to the #1 team in the nation (and shouldn't that define you as second-best?)

But if you make Texas #3 and let Florida play Bama again for the title game, you open the door for a 12-1 national champion that is only .500 against top-5 opponents, and finishes the season with the same SEC record as the SEC champs.

So you put Texas in the national championship, but if they lose, all the SEC crazies will piss and moan that Bama and Florida should have gotten a rematch for the title.

And all of this is ignoring TCU, Cincy, and Boise State.

The BCS: Muddying the Waters Since 1998.

Also, if Florida and Alabama played again, it renders the SEC title game as pretty much meaningless and effectively kills the argument of the BCS honks that the regular season is a playoff.

lacydog: On the flip side:

Who's the worst team this year? I have a few candidates:

San Jose State (1-10, only win against FCS Cal Poly)
Washington State (1-10, only win against SMU)
Eastern Michigan (0-11, including a loss to Ball St)
Ball State (1-10, only win noted above, lost to New Hampshire)
Miami of Ohio (1-11, winning against Toledo)
Vanderbilt (2-10, wins against Rice and Western Carolina)
New Mexico (1-10, eked out a close win over Colorado St last weekend)
Western Kentucky (0-10... in the Sun Belt)

(Also considered: Maryland, Memphis, Rice, Ark. St, North Texas, Akron with 2 losses apiec)

/The MAC really sucks this year. We really drag down Boise State's strength of schedule
//Sorry, BGSU was supposed to be really good this year. And Miami is usually much better.
///I wonder what Bowl game BGSU will be in

There is no way Vandy is on that list, they are in the SEC.

Person Of Interest: IslanderInExile: If Texas wins out and Bama's only loss is to Florida (or vice versa), it's tough to say that Texas is #2 because the SEC loser's only loss will be to the #1 team in the nation (and shouldn't that define you as second-best?)

But if you make Texas #3 and let Florida play Bama again for the title game, you open the door for a 12-1 national champion that is only .500 against top-5 opponents, and finishes the season with the same SEC record as the SEC champs.

So you put Texas in the national championship, but if they lose, all the SEC crazies will piss and moan that Bama and Florida should have gotten a rematch for the title.

And all of this is ignoring TCU, Cincy, and Boise State.

The BCS: Muddying the Waters Since 1998.

Also, if Florida and Alabama played again, it renders the SEC title game as pretty much meaningless and effectively kills the argument of the BCS honks that the regular season is a playoff.

They changed the BCS rules a couple years ago. It is impossible (now) to make it to the title game if you lose your conference championship.

/Though the rules don't say you have to WIN your championship, either
//Better off in the Big10/Pac10

betona: Once again, the Big Ten has wrapped up their schedule while everybody else keeps on playing.

With the way most of the Big 10 has been playing this year, his may not be a bad thing.

/Michigan fan
//sick of being humbled too

1 plays 2 still. 5 plays 9 still. 3,4,6,7,8 all lose their next games. 9 beats 5. Then 9 becomes 2. 2 beats 1 in the National Championship game.

/Sweet Caroline, let's go Pitt.

Lost Thought 00:

They changed the BCS rules a couple years ago. It is impossible (now) to make it to the title game if you lose your conference championship.


That is not true

lacydog: On the flip side:

Who's the worst team this year? I have a few candidates:

San Jose State (1-10, only win against FCS Cal Poly)
Washington State (1-10, only win against SMU)
Eastern Michigan (0-11, including a loss to Ball St)
Ball State (1-10, only win noted above, lost to New Hampshire)
Miami of Ohio (1-11, winning against Toledo)
Vanderbilt (2-10, wins against Rice and Western Carolina)
New Mexico (1-10, eked out a close win over Colorado St last weekend)
Western Kentucky (0-10... in the Sun Belt)

(Also considered: Maryland, Memphis, Rice, Ark. St, North Texas, Akron with 2 losses apiec)

/The MAC really sucks this year. We really drag down Boise State's strength of schedule
//Sorry, BGSU was supposed to be really good this year. And Miami is usually much better.
///I wonder what Bowl game BGSU will be in

Perennial worst team contender Temple is 9-2; 7-0 in the MAC. Weird.

you have pee hands: Perennial worst team contender Temple is 9-2; 7-0 in the MAC. Weird.

IslanderInExile: If Texas wins out and Bama's only loss is to Florida (or vice versa), it's tough to say that Texas is #2 because the SEC loser's only loss will be to the #1 team in the nation (and shouldn't that define you as second-best?)

No, it means you lost to a higher ranked team. When there are 119 teams, and you play only 13 of them, ranking your exact position is not going to be, well, exact. For example, if I'm "better than" teams 100, 95, 50, and 30, but "worse than" team 1, it doesn't automatically mean I'm #2. But even this kind of comparison doesn't work well in college football.

Lost Thought 00: They changed the BCS rules a couple years ago. It is impossible (now) to make it to the title game if you lose your conference championship.

/Though the rules don't say you have to WIN your championship, either
//Better off in the Big10/Pac10

That is incorrect. The only selection criteria for the national championship game is "The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game."

All of this is assuming that Bama can beat Auburn this Friday....I know...I know, but at least I can dream.

Plus since the game is on Friday, my hubby and I are staying for the game and we don't have to drive all over the southeast for T-giving with the fam damily.

WAR EAGLE, HEY

YouWinAgainGravity: Lost Thought 00: They changed the BCS rules a couple years ago. It is impossible (now) to make it to the title game if you lose your conference championship.

/Though the rules don't say you have to WIN your championship, either
//Better off in the Big10/Pac10

That is incorrect. The only selection criteria for the national championship game is "The top two teams in the final BCS Standings shall play in the National Championship Game."

But they changed the BCS formula so that you cannot be in the top 2 teams if you lose your conference championship

Lost Thought 00:

But they changed the BCS formula so that you cannot be in the top 2 teams if you lose your conference championship

As two of us have said, No they didn't. If you want to supply a link proving this feel free

Dr_Retriever: All of this is assuming that Bama can beat Auburn this Friday....I know...I know, but at least I can dream.

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go

Hang On Voltaire: Lost Thought 00:

But they changed the BCS formula so that you cannot be in the top 2 teams if you lose your conference championship

As two of us have said, No they didn't. If you want to supply a link proving this feel free

That doesn't make much sense, because the BCS ranking is based upon aggregate scores in polls. If the humans don't penalize a team for losing (say Alabama somehow beats Florida 36-34 in triple overtime), then it's going to be difficult for a team to drop just based upon computer rankings, which you would think would still be pretty high.

So you're saying that if there were only one 12-0 team and everyone else had at least 3 losses, that they wouldn't be in the championship game at 12-1 if they lost the conference title game?

the only people i've seen suggesting that the national championship game should be a rematch of the SEC title game are the idiots of the Fark sports tab.

Lost Thought 00: But they changed the BCS formula so that you cannot be in the top 2 teams if you lose your conference championship

No, they didn't. It would be highly unlikely to occur now because most of the voters have come around to the idea of "if you don't win your conference, you don't play for the title", but there is absolutely nothing in the BCS formula stopping it from happening.

drew46n2: the only people i've seen suggesting that the national championship game should be a rematch of the SEC title game are the idiots of the Fark sports tab.

Exactly. Wasn't it just in like 2006 when #1 Ohio State and #2 Michigan played and Ohio State won a close game and everyone thought they should get a rematch for the BCS championship because they were 'clearly the best two teams in the country'? Then Michigan loses the Rose Bowl and Ohio State loses the championship game???

If they haven't made the rule change they should

If you don't win your Conference, you shouldn't get to play in the National Title Game. I don't care what conference you are from.

KiwDaWabbit: Alabama somehow beats Florida 36-34 in triple overtime

A safety in college-style overtime? That would actually be pretty cool.

nudave: KiwDaWabbit: Alabama somehow beats Florida 36-34 in triple overtime

A safety in college-style overtime? That would actually be pretty cool.

Dammit. I forgot about the made/missed two-point conversion option. Although the safety would be much cooler.

nudave: KiwDaWabbit: Alabama somehow beats Florida 36-34 in triple overtime

A safety in college-style overtime? That would actually be pretty cool.

Failed two point conversion? Have to go for two after the third overtime right?

varmitydog: 20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
...
23 Houston Cougars 9-2

7-3 > 9-2, apparently.

/hates all the USC fellatio

weiserfireman: If they haven't made the rule change they should

If you don't win your Conference, you shouldn't get to play in the National Title Game. I don't care what conference you are from.


had Oklahoma lost to Mizzou in the big 12 championship game last year, Texas would've played Florida, and it would've been the right matchup.

Hydra: varmitydog: 20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
...
23 Houston Cougars 9-2

7-3 > 9-2, apparently.

/hates all the USC fellatio


except USC in 7-3 in the pac-10, while Utah and UH are 9-2 in the Mt. West and Conference USA, respectively. If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on it's win-loss record, then I guess you just started following college ball last month.

drew46n2: weiserfireman: If they haven't made the rule change they should

If you don't win your Conference, you shouldn't get to play in the National Title Game. I don't care what conference you are from.


had Oklahoma lost to Mizzou in the big 12 championship game last year, Texas would've played Florida, and it would've been the right matchup.

So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing. Kind of takes away the argument that every week is important.


/Tom Osbourne was right about championship games.
//Should not get to play for mythical NC if you don't win your conference

Barring any major upsets over the next two weeks, the winner of the Florida-Alabama Southeastern Conference title game will face Texas in the BCS championship game on Jan. 7 at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.

Provided Texas doesn't choke on their own awesomeness this week in College Station.

Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

Would have made it worthless for the whole conference if the champ gets a lesser game than a team that didn't win it's own division.

minoridiot: Barring any major upsets over the next two weeks, the winner of the Florida-Alabama Southeastern Conference title game will face Texas in the BCS championship game on Jan. 7 at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif.

Provided Texas doesn't choke on their own awesomeness this week in College Station.

t-sip tears are the beverage of choice in College Station, followed closely by cheap beer.

Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

Would have made it worthless for the whole conference if the champ gets a lesser game than a team that didn't win it's own division.


like Nebraska in 2001? They went to the National Championship game despite Colorado beating them on it's way to a Big 12 North and Big 12 title.

You have pee hands

Don't forget that temple lost to a Div 1-AA school to open the season.

drew46n2: Hydra: varmitydog: 20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
...
23 Houston Cougars 9-2

7-3 > 9-2, apparently.

/hates all the USC fellatio


except USC in 7-3 in the pac-10, while Utah and UH are 9-2 in the Mt. West and Conference USA, respectively. If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on it's win-loss record, then I guess you just started following college ball last month.

Wait, you're talking about the same Mountain West that almost went undefeated against Pac-10 teams last year, right?

If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on the conference it plays in (even though their conference is overrated), I guess you've had your head up your ass since you started following college football.

drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

Would have made it worthless for the whole conference if the champ gets a lesser game than a team that didn't win it's own division.


like Nebraska in 2001? They went to the National Championship game despite Colorado beating them on it's way to a Big 12 North and Big 12 title.

Colorado should have had the shot if a Big 12 teams was going to get one. It's not like Nebraska did anything in that game.

The Computers Say, " BAMA #1" I Like the computers this week!



We feast on Tiger this week!

ROOOOLLLL TIDE!

Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

Would have made it worthless for the whole conference if the champ gets a lesser game than a team that didn't win it's own division.


like Nebraska in 2001? They went to the National Championship game despite Colorado beating them on it's way to a Big 12 North and Big 12 title.

Colorado should have had the shot if a Big 12 teams was going to get one. It's not like Nebraska did anything in that game.

But until the Pac 10 and Big Televen have conference championship games, they shouldn't get rewarded either for not even having to worry about playing a conference championship game... And this year, if a 3-loss Nebraska beats a probable undefeated Texas, should TCU or Boise St get a shot at the NC without having to play a conference championship? Cincinnati at least will have to play for the Big East championship (but that's no guaranteed win for them either).

/hot like the iron

Ponzholio: Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: drew46n2: Hillbilly Jim: So winning the conference would have meant absolutely nothing


for Mizzou it would have. Texas blew them out in the first quarter of their game last year.

Would have made it worthless for the whole conference if the champ gets a lesser game than a team that didn't win it's own division.


like Nebraska in 2001? They went to the National Championship game despite Colorado beating them on it's way to a Big 12 North and Big 12 title.

Colorado should have had the shot if a Big 12 teams was going to get one. It's not like Nebraska did anything in that game.

But until the Pac 10 and Big Televen have conference championship games, they shouldn't get rewarded either for not even having to worry about playing a conference championship game... And this year, if a 3-loss Nebraska beats a probable undefeated Texas, should TCU or Boise St get a shot at the NC without having to play a conference championship? Cincinnati at least will have to play for the Big East championship (but that's no guaranteed win for them either).

The Big 12 and SEC are not being punished in any way for having a championship game, they choose their own conference set up. I think the Pac-10 and Big east do it right by playing round robin schedule. I hate the Big 10 half-assed rotating shiat.

WSUCanuck: You have pee hands

Don't forget that temple lost to a Div 1-AA school to open the season.

The MAC is bad this year. Not as bad as the Sun Belt (BG did beat Troy), but bad. Though the Sun Belt would probably look better if they didn't schedule the SEC so often. Maybe take on a few CUSA, WAC and MAC teams.

/Villanova really should be an FBS team, though. They're probably good enough to be a contender if they moved up in the Big East
//Temple losing to them isn't really that bad

Hydra: drew46n2: Hydra: varmitydog: 20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
...
23 Houston Cougars 9-2

7-3 > 9-2, apparently.

/hates all the USC fellatio


except USC in 7-3 in the pac-10, while Utah and UH are 9-2 in the Mt. West and Conference USA, respectively. If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on it's win-loss record, then I guess you just started following college ball last month.

Wait, you're talking about the same Mountain West that almost went undefeated against Pac-10 teams last year, right?

If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on the conference it plays in (even though their conference is overrated), I guess you've had your head up your ass since you started following college football.


Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about this season.

And of course you have to take into account the quality of the conference. Are you suggesting that an undefeated Sun Belt team should be in the title game based only on its record? Same reason Boise won't get in despite going undefeated...they went undefeated in the WAC. There's probably a dozen teams in div 1 who'd go undefeated in that cupcake conference.

lacydog: On the flip side:

Who's the worst team this year? I have a few candidates:

San Jose State (1-10, only win against FCS Cal Poly)

i think, when your only win is against a polytechnical in I-AA, which has a record of 4-7, that's your #1 contender for worst team.

Hydra: drew46n2: Hydra: varmitydog: 20 USC Trojans 7-3
21 Utah Utes 9-2
...
23 Houston Cougars 9-2

7-3 > 9-2, apparently.

/hates all the USC fellatio


except USC in 7-3 in the pac-10, while Utah and UH are 9-2 in the Mt. West and Conference USA, respectively. If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on it's win-loss record, then I guess you just started following college ball last month.

Wait, you're talking about the same Mountain West that almost went undefeated against Pac-10 teams last year, right?

If you seriously think a team's ranking should be exclusively based on the conference it plays in (even though their conference is overrated), I guess you've had your head up your ass since you started following college football.

sadly, 46n2 is right. i don't think at this point there should be ANY 3-loss teams in the top 25, much less ranked at 14. but strength of schedule and strength of conference play a big part in it. a C-USA team with 1 loss will always be behind a 3 loss PAC-10 team.

/and don't even think about being a big 10 team with 1 loss

drew46n2: There's probably a dozen teams in div 1 who'd go undefeated in that cupcake conference.

Nevada is shaping up to be a decent team (this game on Friday has me more than a little worried) and Fresno is not too bad. Other than that, you are correct that the WAC is poor at best. Boise has tried to get quality non-confrence opponents, but most of them will not take the chance. Boise had both Oregon and Oregon State scheduled this year and OSU rescheduled to 2012. That would have shaped up to be a pretty decent non-confrence schedule. Anyhow, I have to give props to Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, VT, and Georgia for stepping up to the plate.

This issue with manipulating your schedule to game the system is one of the biggest problems with the current system.