Houston beat Okie St. in Stillwater, they're both 6-1, yet they're ranked 4 spots behind them.

Ohio St. have played, I suppose, one good team and they have 2 losses yet they're ranked #17. Their signature win is Wisconsin...or is it Navy.

Cal have played two teams of any quality at all and they lost both by a combined 72-6 yet somehow they are still in the top 25.

Oregon are ranked #10 after being completely manhandled by Boise St earlier in the year yet that "quality win" apparently is not enough to keep the Broncos ahead of USC in the standings in spite of the fact that the Trojans have not played anyone of the "quality" of the Ducks. Can't wait to see what happens this Saturday.

USC jumps Cincy after beating the Beavers in SoCal when Cincy has already gone into Corvalis and taken care of business.

TCU gets mad love for beating a BYU team that the 3-4 Seminoles completely destroyed in Provo.

I'm sure I could go on but...

The BCS is a joke. Always has been. Any formula which has 2/3rds of it's components made of human polls with human bias and personal agenda is invalid. Period. Bring me a playoff. Please.

I am by no means a fan of the BCS system or the ranking system either, but here's some Devil's Advocate viewpoints. Not saying any are correct in any sense of the word, but since we're talking about a skewed system in general, they could be factors.

BCS system isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than what college football use to have.

The complaints I hear about the BCS rankings are similar to the ones I hear from fans of the lower classifications teams in high school when their team beats one of the better highest classification teams. They are always disappointed with the overall State rankings. For some reason they truly believe because they beat one good higher classification team that means they could do the same week in and week out.

Say what you want but the Cincy, TCU and Boise teams are 3A or 4A teams competing against 5A.

BCS STANDINGS

Oct. 25, 2009

1. Florida - 5A

2. Alabama - 5A

3. Texas -5A

4. Iowa - 5A

5. Southern Cal - 5A

6. TCU - 4A

7. Boise St. - 3A

8. Cincinnati - 4A

9. LSU -5A

10. Oregon- 5A

11. Georgia Tech - 5A

12. Penn St. - 5A

13. Virginia Tech -5A

14. Oklahoma St. - 5A

15. Pittsburgh - 4A

16. Utah - 4A

17. Ohio St. - 5A

18. Houston - 3A

19. Miami - 5A

20. Arizona - 5A

21. West Virginia - 4A

22. South Carolina -5A

23. Notre Dame -5A

24. California - 5A

25. Mississippi - 5A

Rocker, I completely agree with you about the non-BCS teams and the "1 big win" argument. However, no matter what level you play at, going undefeated is an EXTREMELY hard thing to do. Getting up for every game week in and week out for 11 or 12 weeks straight is darn near impossible, that's why it seems like every team that has won the national championship has at least 1 loss lately. The problem I have with the BCS is that in my mind, regardless of what conference you play in, if you are undefeated, you should be ranked ahead of anyone with 1 loss. An undefeated season deserves a shot to see if you are as good as your record shows. I have no problem with 1 loss and you're out. If you play in a lesser division it should be harder for you to get there. Last year, Utah deserved the shot, and proved it by beating Alabama. I am a die hard Buckeyes fan, but I'll be the first to say Boise St. at least deserved a chance in 06. Again they proved it by beating Oklahoma.

It's not even just the non-BCS conferences, Auburn went undefeated in 04, won their bowl, and play in the SEC. What more do they have to do?

The BCS is a great formula for coming up with the 6 or 8 teams who are PROBABLY the best in the country. Perfect for seeding a playoff system. Any system that lets the Buckeyes back into the title game like what happened in 07 just because they lost early and better teams lost late, or a system that holds undefeated teams because a 1 loss BCS team is "better" is hopelessly flawed. And this is coming from someone who bleeds Scarlet and Grey...

Playoff does this exact same thing.

Remember also in 2007 the NFL Patriots (16-0) were undefeated in the regular season including a season ending win over the 10-6 NY Giants? If you recall that same Giant team beat them just a few weeks later to become the NFL version of the BCS NC. Is that any more fair?

I would say that is not an apples to apples comparison. Yes the Patriots were undefeated, but the Giants were included in the playoffs because they were determined to be 1 of the best 12 teams in the NFL. They had to beat great competition, including those undefeated patriots to get to and win the superbowl. I don't think anyone is naive enough to say that a playoff will ALWAYS give you the best team. However, a playoff WILL always guarantee that the top group of teams from that given year were given the chance to play each other on the field and one will emerge victorious. The BCS doesn't even give an undefeated team a chance to prove themselves.

no it is not the exact same thing.

rocker, you always try and use this chit as an example - please stop. it is flawed logic and completely wrong. The NYG beating the Pats has nothing in common with a team like OSU making the National championship game under the BCS rankings - ZERO.

the NYG BEAT NE on the field, and a playoff is the only way to get us an undisputed champion.

this year especially, I think you can go as far down as 16 - and a 16 team playoff would be about ideal.

would anyone want a part of GTech right now??

So you think the NY Giants were better than the New England Patriots that season or just the undisputed champions?

Because the BCS NC team is also the undisputed champions of college football considering the team that won did so by the rules agreed to prior to the competition.

Let's say IF Texas were to lose and a LSU team comes back and beats Florida in the SEC championship you would feel more comfortable crowning a college football national champion between two undefeated teams like Boise vs TCU?

How do you know the SEC might not have the two best college football teams in the nation?

negative - they aren't undisputed bc it the champion is not settled on the field. Too many years where deserving teams never even get the chance to compete for the national championship under the BCS system in place.

I do agree it is better than the old system BUT the NCAA can fix this and they know it
and as parity is becoming more and more evident every year, the BCS is more of a failure every year.

Yes. Otherwise why are the non-BCS schools even in the same division as the BCS schools? If they never deserve a shot, regardless of who they beat or going undefeated, why even include them in the BCS formulas?

I don't think any of them really think they have a shot at the BCS NC unless alot of things fall into place, but they are fighting to see if one of those schools might get a chance for a big payday by earning a berth into a BCS Bowl.

And here you have nailed the fundamental flaw with the entire BCS system. They want nothing to do with proving who the best team is. They know college football fans are the most rabid of all sports fans. They know we will continue to buy up their inferior product because we have no other choice. The BCS conferences just want the money. And the Big 10 and the PAC 10 are the first two conferences fighting on the front lines to keep it.

Thing is with your precious BCS, we can't afford to waste the single opportunity we have to match two teams for all the marbles on two teams from the same conference because there is simply not enough data to determine how the conferences stack up. That is precisely why the OSU/UM re-match a few years back made no sense at all.

That's what would be so good about a play-off. If, it just so happens that the two best teams are in the SEC, then they may get a chance to play for all of it assuming the seedings work out that way (and it's statistically more likely that they do work out that way than not). So great.

The simple fact is, we already have a playoff in place, it's just one that includes too few teams. And, not unlike the possibility that the "wrong" team wins an 8-team playoff, the "wrong" team could win a two team playoff. The advantage, of course, is obvious. That is, any team with a reasonable argument for why they deserve to be in the discussion of who should win it all has a chance to prove it.

You love to point out the NY Giants and Pats, showing that the NFL's play-off system may not have delivered us with the best team as Champion. Well, all the BCS would have done is assure that Pats would be playing in the NC game which is no different than how it worked out in the NFL. However, like the NFL, they'd still have to win the damned thing, and they didn't. So, you need to actually make a relevant comparison and quit bringing this baseless argument up.

As for it being better than before. Perhaps it is, but only marginally so and, specifically only in certain years. One obvious example of this is USC v UT. It's the fact that match ups like that could never happen than made us clamor for change. But the change we didn't want was just plucking two teams out of a sea of teams that all had entirely valid claim to a shot and pretending that those were the two best teams in the country.

Even the NFL playoffs you're not assured the two best teams make it to the Super Bowl. Many of year either the NFC or the AFC may have the best two teams. That's why many feel the SEC Championship is the closest thing the NCAA has to a real playoff game.

When you say "many", do you mean myopic fools like yourself. Perhaps this year's SEC Championship could be that, which is ironic because that has less to do with the SEC looking good and everything to do with the fact that nobody else looks any better. However, most years you have one team with a legit claim to play in the NC game vs a possible spoiler.

I'm not saying that the play-off would assure us of having the two best teams in the final. I said it might work out that way. However, at least a play-off goes a hell of a lot further to assure us that the two best teams have a shot at winning it all. Sure, they might play in the semis, but at least they played.

Sure, bust out your 5As and 4As all you want. But we simply don't know whether or not TCU or Boise St are the best team in the country. And that's the point.

Wow! Myopic fools. I'm impressed enough to where I had to look it up?

Nearsightedness or shortsightedness??? You got to be fricken kidding me? SEC has won 3 consecutive BCS NC convincingly and 4 out of the last 6. Any NC game excluding the SEC champion this season would have to be considered a joke. Much like a Super Bowl that excluded the AFC.

So rocker... Florida and Oklahoma WERE the 2 best teams? LSU and Ohio State in 07? Florida and Ohio State in 06? You can say FOR SURE that you saw the best 2 teams on the field? Because that is highly debatable. You're gonna try to tell me that there is no possible way that USC in any one of those 3 years, couldn't have wiped the floor with either of the teams in the "national title". How bout Texas last year? We know they beat one of them. Personally that 06 Gators team woulda had more trouble with USC or Michigan than Ohio State (who has a problem with the SEC in general, mentally I mean). Stick to the flimsy argument that the BCS is better than what we had (though I would argue it isn't). Every year we can have a serious debate at the end of the year as to who shoulda been playing in the big game, or who shoulda won. There was no debate when New England played New York. And there isn't a debate as to who the true World Champions were that year. There is a debate in college football. And some people, would rather leave it up to debate. That's fine. I know many traditionalists that had no problem with split national champions.

And the only reason why the SEC CG is set up to be a playoff game, is because the system set it up that way, before the season. Florida and Alabama were both ranked really high, to there credit, haven't lost, and therefore IF they slip up, they wont have to climb very high up. Again, you see this as a GREAT thing, I see it as unfair.

And for the arrogant SEC fans like Rocker, remember, what goes up will always come down, and the SEC will have there day and get punched in the mouth. Have no idea if that is this year or not, but it will happen. If you told me 10 years ago, that Florida State would be struggling to become bowl eligable in 2009, I woulda laughed in your face.

One major problem with this argument... The rules of the NFL are stated very clearly and no one makes the playoffs or the championship game because of a vote by biased sports writers or coaches. Sure, college football has agreed upon rules for who gets to play for all the marbles but it's far from black and white. They may as well say "Hey Huddle, you guys watch a few games this year, we don't really care if you all watch the same ones, and catch some highlights and stats on Sunday then at the end of the season just pick two teams that you think are the best and we'll throw them into a bowl game against each other and call the winner champion. Oh yeah, almost forgot, you should vote preseason on who you think will be there at the end. Please don't let your early predicitions effect your final decision."


That's just the point. The NFL never excludes anyone for anything other than on field performance and standing within their conference. It doesn't matter whether the AFC or NFC are stronger. Both are represented in the playoffs and everyone gets their shot. You are eliminating a half dozen conferences from the equation, regardless of how good they may actually be, by annointing the SEC automatically worthy of a title shot. Your bias for the SEC, as good as it is, and your 5A, 4A, 3A rating system is based purely on past performance and more importantly tradition. Unless TCU, Cincy, etc. actually get to play one of the so-called big boys we'll never really know and that's the shame of this whole mess.

Well said all the way around. One thing I will say, the ONE thing the BCS did right, was add a 5th game. That made it virtually impossible for a mid-major to NOT get into a big money BCS game (which ultimately was all the mid-majors were whining about to begin with, was the lack of money) . I LOVED seeing one of those unbeatable SEC teams get embarassed by a mid-major in the SEC's backyard.

You assertion, however that the SEC Championship is the defacto Natl Championship (ala the NFC or AFC Championship when one or the other conference is much deeper) implies that, not only does it contain the best team in the country but the two best teams. And that is where your argument crumbles.

Are you implying that LSU v Tennessee in '07 or FL vs Ark in '06 were the defacto Championship games?

I know you don't really believe this, and if you do........

yer clueless - if there is anything that has been proven on the field it is that USC DOMINATES the SEC conference.period.

so to try and state that the SEC championship is some sort of NC "Playoff" game is a joke. Brian pointed it out below, but it is a pretty safe bet that USC in any of those years beats down FLA and LSU.

the SEC is good, no doubt but y'all are fortunate the way the system is set up, bc in a playoff and USC in the picture we are looking at a whole different story.

I would have liked to see Florida play USC in 2006. That would have been an interesting game (no disrespect to Ohio State intended).

Doesn't surprise me any Big 10 or Pac 10 fan would prefer the old traditional system. Since the creation of the BCS exactly how many nayional champions have these two conferences produced? You have to admit, prior to the BCS it seem like both the Big 10 and Pac 10 were awarded alot more National Championships.

Actually, assuming that you're talking about a reasonable time frame, like about as long before the BCS as there have been years since we absolutely do not "have to admit".

For the Pac 10, UW was awarded the NC in 91. USC had not been awarded a pre-BCS NC since 78 and UCLA won their only NC in 56.

Michigan was awarded a NC in 97 and every other Big 10 (I forget when Penn St joined but they were awarded in 82 and 86, both of which would have preceded the fair time frame to make this a suitable comparison) and every other Big 10 team hadn't won a pre-BCS title for some time before that.

So, you've got the Pac 10 with 1 since and 1 in the same time period prior and the Big 10 with 1 since and 1 in the time frame prior.

So, sorry, but you're wrong here.

The program entered a new golden age upon the arrival of head coach John McKay (1960-1975). During this period the Trojans produced two Heisman Trophy winners (Mike Garrett and O.J. Simpson) and won four national championships (1962, 1967, 1972 and 1974). McKay's influence continued even after he departed for the NFL when an assistant coach, John Robinson (1976-1982), took over as head coach. Under Robinson, USC won another national championship in 1978 (shared with Alabama; ironically, USC defeated Alabama, 24–14, that same

Dude, have you decided to take up Sgt. Ryan's torch of making stupid arguments? What, in your above post, refutes anything I wrote in mine? I said USC's last pre BCS title was in 78. You just said the same.

Now, if your initial argument was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 won more National titles in the 70 odd years prior to the BCS than in the 12 or so years since, well that's great. Point proved. I, of course, went with the bold assumption that we were going to be talking apples to apples, and thus looking at a similar period of time. My bad.

By god I hope you're fishing.

I think you're the one fishing here. My point was that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are the biggest losers from the creation of the BCS. So I understand why they prefer the old tradional system that assures them a higher profile in college football.

Oh and I like the way you took USC only down decade in football to make your point.

The point is that at the end of each year of the BCS there has been just as much controversy as there was prior. Nice to see that you completely missed the point, and just broad-brushed me as "only a Big Ten or Pac 10 fan would feel this way". Almost every single year, there was a big question mark as to the ultimate champion and/or who they should have been playing, starting in that first year.

1998: Tennessee won, but several teams with 1 loss might have been more deserving than the Florida State team they ultimately played.
1999: Virginia Tech played one of the weakest schedules of any team to ever make the "title game", SEC Champion Alabama, Michigan (who beat Bama in the orange Bowl), or Nebraska would have made much more formidable opponents. Not to mention Wisconsin.
2000: Where do I start? You had 3 1 loss teams, all great, but only one was selected to play undefeated Oklahoma. Miami beat FSU, Washington beat Miami, somehow FSU gets the nod? FSU was great, but no one would be able to convince any Miami or Washington fan that they weren't as good.
2001: Easily the biggest black eye on the BCS, as Nebraska somehow gets in without even winning it's own division, and getting destroyed in there season finale giving up 60+ to Colorado. 2001 Miami was one of the best teams of all time, so I don't think it would've mattered who they played, but certainly a stronger case could have been made for Pac 10 Champion Oregon, who creamed that same Colorado team.
2002: BCS gets it right by default, as Ohio State and Miami were the last of the unbeatens, though, in a playoff, there were several good teams that could've easily competed against those 2 schools, including USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, and my Hawkeyes.
2003: Oklahoma loses there championship game in embarassing fashion, yet somehow remains #1 in the BCS despite being #3 in both the major polls. LSU beats them in the Sugar Bowl (home game) and USC wins the Rose Bowl and gets the AP National Championship (a check-mate scenario in this argument on its own as clearly, split titles can still happen)
2004: Ultimate proof that even if you're an UNDEFEATED SEC Champion (not a fluke 2 loss team) that you still could get screwed over. Undefeated Auburn gets snubbed because they weren't chosen as one of the "2 best" teams... in August. Not to mention, Utah was undefeated as well.
2005: See 2002, though both USC and Texas were 2 of the best teams of all time
2006: Florida wins, but do any of us no for certain they were a true champ?
2007: LSU same thing x 10 because they had 2 losses
2008: Florida, again, Texas beats Oklahoma, Oklahoma gets the nod, we know at least between those 2 teams, Florida didn't get the better opponent. Not to mention 1 loss USC, or even undefeated Utah

So 10 years of controversy, how is that any different than previous years. You get different match ups, but you still get a split title here and there, and you still have the same debate at the end of the year. Nothing has changed, just that there is a lot more money to be had (which is all that matters to anybody calling the shots).

Why would I pick a period longer than the BCS has been around? You do want an accurate comparison, don't you? The BCS has been around for about a dozen years, so you've got to go back a similar time frame or your point is flawed. So, you want to go back to 78? To USC's shared title? Great, then we can also include their shared title in '03 and guess what, now it's 2 in the 20 years prior and 2 in the 12 years since.

Hell, even the Michigan title I referenced in '97 was shared. So, in the reasonable time frame before the Big 10 had one shared title and in the time since, they've got one unanimous one. Sounds like you could even call that an improvement.

Again, is your point that the Pac 10 won more in the nearly 70 years prior to the BCS than in the 12 years since? Well, so has the SEC and pretty much everyone else. But that's not really all that interesting, no is it.

Long story short, you didn't look it up, assumed that we'd find a bunch of Pac 10 and Big 10 teams as NC in the years leading up to the BCS, and the data didn't pan out. Now you're scrambling.

Face it, no reasonable person would look at this argument and not agree that you're flat out wrong.

And remember, I'm an SEC guy. Just one still capable of rational thought.

I know it for certain.

Oh, and had rocker not tossed me that grapefruit of people "having to admit" something that the data shows is absolutely not the case, I would have been more inclined to focus on a big picture argument such as this. That being, that there have been maybe 3-4 years that the BCS delivered us what the Bowls could not, a matchup between two teams that it was rather safe to say were the two teams who deserved to be playing for the title but were not in conferences that traditional bowl tie ins would pit against one another.

So, it's not so much that people think the bowl era was better. Rather, if you're going to blow it up, why no do so in favor of a system that actually works more often than it doesn't?

Oh, and I have no question the Gators were the champs in '06. IMO, the BCS got it right that year, though they had to kind of sleaze out to do so. While I absolutely think FL should have gone ahead of UM, UM still got "robbed" because they were #2 after the last game they played and got jumped in the polls while idle. That, in itself is lame even if the right team ultimately got chosen.

I gave up on arguing with Rockerbraves after about three minutes. As long as it benefits his beloved LSU, he's not going to budge, no matter how much sense you make. Good luck.

I need to follow your lead on this one.

great post -

excellent reminder of what a joke of a system the BCS is. Every other sport decides it on the field and celebrates the champion. Even tho we thought NE was better than the NYG, there was zero controversy or debate after they lost the SB - the way it should be.

fwiw - I think the 06 Gators were impressive at the end of the season, but I have no doubt LSU does not win a playoff in '07 and I have serious doubts '08 FLA could beat USC.

great post -

excellent reminder of what a joke of a system the BCS is. Every other sport decides it on the field and celebrates the champion. Even tho we thought NE was better than the NYG, there was zero controversy or debate after they lost the SB - the way it should be.

fwiw - I think the 06 Gators were impressive at the end of the season, but I have no doubt LSU does not win a playoff in '07 and I have serious doubts '08 FLA could beat USC.

Surprise a Pac 10 fan calling the current BCS a joke. Like I said before it's not perfect but it's certainly better than what was in place prior.

Think most would agree one reason why the Big 10 and their tag along little Pac 10 sister conference finally decided to come aboard the BCS was due to the fact Michigan/Big10 fans felt cheated when the Wolverines got dropped to #2 after winning the 1997 Rose Bowl. Their fear was that if they didn't join that this could happen again.

In hindsite, you gotta wonder if that was the right move for those conferences if their only interest was winning football national championships.

How many potential more NC would the Pac 10 and Big 10 have if the BCS was not in place?

Let's see? For argument sake, we'll assume that Miami would have lost their bowl game anyway to say the SEC Champion Georgia Bulldogs and Ohio State would have won the Rose over Washington State to capture the 2002 title and USC would have taken care of business vs. Michigan to secure their 2004 championship.

1. 2003 - the media darlings USC would have certainly been awarded the NC
2. 2005 - USC would have been awarded a NC again by beating Penn State thus eliminating Texas
3. 2006 - Whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC
4. 2007 - Again whichever team won between USC & Ohio State in the Rose would have been crowned NC

Detlef, didn't you say you were originally from Pac 10 country?

Just wondering???

Rocker, I'm pretty sure you are the only college football fan I have ever come across who is a fan of the current BCS system. Only someone who is scared that their team couldn't actually win a playoff against the premier teams in college football would want it to stay how it is. As a college football fan I would LOVE to see Ohio State have to prove that they are better than "just the best of the weak Big10". I would LOVE to see if USC is actually as good as everyone always thinks they are. Most of all, I would LOVE to see if the SEC is as good as advertised. I think you are the one that is scared, not all the rest of us.

I think when you make a bold statement and that bold statement is proven to be undeniably wrong, you need to own that before you can then go on speculating what may or may not have happened and trying to pass it off like a forgone conclusion.

Just sayin'

And while you're at it, explain why in 2007, 2 loss "media darling" USC would have jumped all the way from 7th to 1st, ahead of both LSU and UF who also won their bowl games.

Further, you do realize, it's hard to make the "media darling" claim when both LSU and USC had 2 losses that year and yet LSU was ranked ahead of them both going into the bowls as well as after USC dispensed with #3 Mich and LSU took care of ND, a team that everyone and their brother knew was completely and totally overrated as well as not even ranked in the top 10?

The discussion isn't about the playoffs it's whether the BCS is a complete failure. Think if you polled most SEC fans (with the possible exception of Bama fans) and most other conferences they would prefer the BCS over the old traditional system while Pac10 and Big 10 fans wouldn't.

If you look back on this thread this is what I said and what I am discussing. Not the playoffs.

--------------------------------------
BCS system isn't perfect, but it's certainly better than what college football use to have.

The complaints I hear about the BCS rankings are similar to the ones I hear from fans of the lower classifications teams in high school when their team beats one of the better highest classification teams. They are always disappointed with the overall State rankings. For some reason they truly believe because they beat one good higher classification team that means they could do the same week in and week out.

Say what you want but the Cincy, TCU and Boise teams are 3A or 4A teams competing against 5A.

Yes I am and this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you are incapable of making or backing up a solid point.

BTW, as a kid, I was a UW fan and was freaking pissed off when they got jocked out National Championships several times. Once when they delivered a dominant Jan 1 victory knowing the whole time that undefeated BYU had pretty much locked it up with their last second victory over an average Michigan team.

I also wished that UW could have played Miami for all the marbles in the early 90s.

As I've said before. It's not so much that I like the old way, I just think that if you're going to "fix" something, then go ahead and fix it.

I'm confussed what year are we talking about? 2007 or 2006?

You never did answer my other question. Were you originally from Pac 10 country?

Actually, I did and right above your post.

As for the year in question, it's always hard to determine which year one is talking about when it comes to college football because they start in one and finish in the other. None the less, you reference both '06 and '07 and one of those years conforms to the one I spoke about above. The year that USC was likely in the driver's seat to play OSU in the title game but pooped the bed vs UCLA. There is no way they would have gotten voted #1 in either poll even if they had gotten to play #1 and undefeated OSU in the Rose Bowl.

Now, as to why those linked to the Pac 10 and Big 10 are more inclined to say it was better before...

Back in the day, while both the SEC and Big 12 (or versions thereof) had bowl tie-ins, they were largely against whomever. While both conferences obviously took great pride in winning their bowl game, it really couldn't be for bragging rights against a set "enemy"

The Big 10 and Pac 10, on the other hand, had that with the Rose Bowl. As a kid, it was a big deal.

Needless to say, the BCS undermines this many years. If USC crushes the 2nd best team in the Big 10, big freaking deal. Now that doesn't trump all, but the attitude among fans of those conferences is, if you're going to mess with our rivalry, the least you could do is actually mess with in in favor a system that isn't nearly as useless in determining the #1 team as the old way.

It's really that simple.

If you are talking 2006, I'm not sure about that because Buckeyes were quote unbeatable that season and IF the Trojans would have done what the Gators did they certainly would have gain the media's full attention. Ironically LSU may have had their best team in 2006 if not for this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESgoMBi6d3g

Again, forgive me for not just taking your word for it that USC would leap-frog 5 teams ranked ahead of them, despite 2 losses, into the top spot considering that you've made verified inaccurate statements about things that actually happened in this thread alone.

If anything, in the pre-BCS era there's a precedentfor crowning an undefeated school from a smaller conference champ a la BYU in '84. Thus, Boise St would have as much say in it as anyone.

darin, I know, I know. I just can't help myself.