BIAS!

Twice this year LSU was ranked #1, and twice it was defeated, and twice it failed to drop out of the Top 5.

Other #1s? USC loses to an unranked Standford and falls to #10. Ohio State loses to an unranked Illinois and falls to #7.

What justifies LSU at #5 after loss to an unranked Arkansas; especially when it's a second loss?

BIAS!

This year again proves why college produces a better game than the NFL. From one week to the next, the scenarios change so dramatically. No team is allowed a "mulligan" because any lose can mean the difference between a January trip to Pasadena or a December ride to Detriot. Thanks Stewart for ushering us through the wild ride thus far, I'm looking forward to the wacky finish ahead.

Just one minor addition: don't forget that Texas just WON a national championship using the zone-read, spread offense.

"many fans are starting to adopt the NFL mentality of placing undue emphasis on "who's playing the best right now."

Ok, is it just my imagination or did I not see Mandel use that very same rationale for some of his voting ballot decisions this year? And hey, whoever is playing the best right now is typically who wins playoff games and determines champions in just about every other sport, which seems to be what everyone wants in cf these days. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

I don't think I've seen anyone arguing that USC should be in the NC game at this point. I'm a pretty big Trojan fan, and even I would have to shake my head at anyone seriously suggesting that. I sure haven't seen it around here. It would be a hilarious end to an insane season if a rash of season ending top 10 losses put them there, but I think we all know that isn't going to happen, and no one seriously expects it to happen. Sounds more to me like Mandel is pulling out a straw man, for whatever his reasons. Saying the Trojans deserve some respect and a cessation of beating the dead horse of the overhyped loss to Stanford (how many top 10 teams have lost to unranked opponents now?) is not the same as saying they deserve to play in the NC game. I think Mandel made such a melodramatic "the sky is falling", "worst upset ever" spectacle after the Stanford game, he probably feels he must keep up the pretense to avoid looking silly. If that's the case, it's backfiring.

But Mandel isn't alone. The Trojans got very little love in the rankings this week, even after a completely convincing demolishing of ASU. I firmly believe they are the best 2-loss team in the country at least, and better than some of the 1 loss teams as well. They stand a good chance at yet another top 4 finish. Hey, fine. Same thing happened last year after the UCLA loss. And the critics were quickly forced to eat their words after the Rose Bowl. I'm thinking odds are the same will be the case this year too.

Stewart, the reason why you suddenly notice the fans' fixation with whose playing best "right now" is that ... well, it's because the system rewards recent success. The polls and pundits -- indeed, the BCS rankings -- place less emphasis on a loss early in the year than later. Even your "power" rankings emphasize recent play.

So you can tell me that every week counts, and to a degree you'd be right. But not every week counts the same. Bottom line, most fans think USC and GA would be a much better NC game than OU and, god forbid, Mizzouri -- and I think most fans are right on this one.

This system is so flawed it's almost funny. Please use your platform to advocate a playoff system -- every column, every year, push it. With great power comes great responsibility my man.

netizen,

Right on the money. It makes no sense at all. And hey, I'm a Trojan fan, but I think the team that got the worst of it was Michigan losing to an unranked team and getting booted out of the rankings entirely.

LSU's continued top 5 ranking is just inexplicable.

From a diehard Ohio State fan: If we are the 1-loss team that doesn't make the national championship game (assuming missouri and west virginia win next week), I will not feel slighted because we did not win every game. If you win every game (other than hawaii) you should be playing for the title. Since we did not, I will take our bowl and set our sights on a bowl win. I will not complain (even if I think we could beat missouri or west virginia).

I so want UCLA going to the Rose Bowl. That would be FAN-TASTIC, especially considering they lost to Notre Dame.

Netizan et al-

LSU lost in triple overtime to two pretty good teams. USC lost to one of the worst Pac-10 teams in recent memory, and Ohio State has beaten no one of consequence. Arkansas and Kentucky have two of the best players in the country leading their offenses, and while Williams is pretty good, the gap between who LSU lost to and who Ohio State and especially USC lost to is pretty wide.

Stew - Based on your reasoning, if OSU gets into the NC game is it all a joke? Didn't OSU just lose to Illinois - or does beating a average UM make up for it the next week? Also, didn't LSU just lose? How are they ranked so high losing at HOME to an unranked team two days ago?

Why can't you write about the need for these teams to play BCS quality teams in OOC games? Look at the top -yes Mizzou played Illinois - but that is it!! It should be mandatory that you play two BCS teams in OOC games if you want to be in a BCS Bowl game.

BTW, your predictions in the big games this week were not good - maybe you should start thinking about who is playing well now a pick those teams.

I'm hoping WV, OSU, and Missou all end with one loss. Then one is left out. If it is OSU, and I am not saying it should be, perhaps schools will be inclined to abandon the Youngstown, Kent St, Akron, Wash approach to ooc games. People wondering why there is so much strength of schedule talk this scenario is it.

Oregon State has had to play the last two games (and the Civil War next week against Oregon) without starting QB Sean Canfield. Backup Lyle Moevao has led the Beavers to wins over Washington and Washington St.

I'm sick of hearing Oregon fans whining like they're the only team in the history of the game to have important players go down with injuries. Look, Oregon St. has had 7 starters miss games, including two All-Americans who have , played a total of three games. Do injuries make life tough? You bet. But don't try and tell people you're the only team that's banged up.

Hey, Stewart:

While I understand the inevitability of playing "What If," (as a Mountaineer, I've been playing it since we lost to Florida Compasspoint), don't you think we've taken it a bit far when we start talking about teams that can't even PLAY in their conference championship being considered for a berth in the NC?

Gawja should be elimninated from discussion simply by virtue of its failure to even make it to its conference championship.

It'a a simple rule: you don't win your conference, you can't play in the NC. Period.

Easy, huh?

for chrth - It would save the Notre Dame season wouldn't it? This is a year for laughs. When doctors start containing the withdrawal symptoms and the power of speech is regained I am anxious to hear thoughts from Notre Dame fans as to what went wrong.

for bob kincaid - As they did last year when they bumped Fla over Mich when the moment of truth was reached I would hope they would consider additional issues and your comments on Georgia. The BCS is already thought of as a big enough joke without putting the SEC #3 in the NC. But SEC fans would have a strong argument as to the best conf if their #3 team is in the NC. Don't think you wouldn't hear it.

I must agree with the bias with LSU. They are a good team but they lost twice and once to a unranked team.

Of course the South Florida Bulls get no love anymore, a bias the other way b/c I guess we are the new kid on the block. We lost three games by a total of 12 points. The Bulls were in every game but gave two of them away. (UCONN - 450+ yards and only 15 points and Cincy with 8 turnovers and a blocked punt and we still almost won the game on the last two plays of the game) The coaches poll is the worst. We are not even ranked by them. They have a 4 loss Auburn team ahead of us! We have 3 losses and we beat Auburn in Auburn! I hope we make it to the Sun Bowl and beat a PAC 10 team and move up in the final polls!

Go Bulls!

Charlie - McFadden and Woodson are two of the best at their positions - period! But with that said, look at who Ark and Kentucky have played this year to appear "pretty good." Bottom line - they were both unranked.

I certainly wouldn't have thought the VOLS would be where they are today about a month ago. You've got to love the drama of it all though! I only wish that LSU had not lost last weekend so that TN would have been set up to do what LSU did to them in SEC title game in 2001, upset them and kill their national title shots. Bravo to the hogs though!!!

Bob Kincaid,

Yes you lost to a Florida compass point for the SECOND year in a row! South Florida has shut down both your "great players" two years in a row. South Florida is just as fast or faster than White and Slaton and that is why they get shut down by South Florida. I am sure WVU will be a little worried when South Florida comes to Morgantown next year and want be saying oh that Florida compasspoint school. When WVU actually beats s then talk smack until then shut up and enjoy beating Pitt and the NC game. Unlike you I give credit to good teams and will be routing for WVU and the Big East.

Go Bulls!

If you want a playoff you are not a college football fan. Go back to watching the NFL where you can barely hear the cheers after each touchdown.

diazrig... Missouri DID play two BCS schools OOC... Illinois and Mississippi. (And when they scheduled Ole Miss four years ago, no one knew they would be this bad.)

Look at Ohio State in comparison... only played Washington.

West Virginia? only Maryland.
LSU? only Virginia Tech.
Florida? only Florida State.

I think only one should be required... that would disqualify Kansas, who played zero.

to charlie,
illinois is ranked better than kentucky and arkansas so lsu should not still be in the top 5, im going to have to agree with netizen and helzapoppin

netizen-

Because neither Stanford nor Illinois could beat Arkansas or Kentucky.

AND yes the SEC is that good, I only hope the bowls help show that this year.

Stewart, thank you for giving Erik Ainge some credit. Those of us who are Tennessee fans have been wondering when someone would finally realize that he is a premier quarterback. No, he doesn't have numbers like Tebow or Daniel, but the NFL team that gets him next year will be very happy that they did. He has kept Tennesse fans coming back for more even though there were a few of weeks this season that we saw only darkness in the tunnel. Way to go Erik, Atlanta is going to be lucky to have you and the rest of the guys in town on Saturday!

Rick - sorry forgot about Miss. - they would qualify. Then who for #2?

mandel, what's wrong with the "2 best teams right now" battling for the title. it happens in every other sport in america. who wants to see lame match ups like the 2001 atrocity featuring nebraska (who got clocked by colorado and didn't win their conference)getting stomped by miami and the 2003 mess with oklahoma (also losing its conference championship game to K-State)getting clocked by lsu. the bcs must yield to a playoff system of conference champions and wild cards. why should ohio state benefit after ending their season on 11-17, when other SEC, big 12 and big east contenders risk conference championship battles into the month of december. your emphasis on the flawed refrain that "every game matters" fails to account for teams having to struggle through periods of freshman starters, injuries, suspensions and other snafus during a season, and gives undue weight to a flawed computer system and "beauty pageant" polls that eliminate deserving contenders for the title. Like in boxing and every other sport in this country, the "toughest one standing" in the end is crowned the champ. to provide for matchups to be predetermined by computers and polls is unamerican. the bcs is fatally flawed and must yield to a playoff system of conference champions and wild cards.

For all of those criticizing OSU's strength of schedule let's not forget these games get scheduled years in advance. When Washington was scheduled they were a pretty good PAC-10 team. The next two years we have USC, the year after Miami of FL. Will be Miami be back to top tier by then, who knows? OSU still has the best strength of schedule of the top 3 in the BCS at 42nd.

You could not be more correct about Eric Ainge. I am not particularly a UT fan but this kid has held a very young inexperienced team together through a roller coaster ride this season. It is hard to believe that the "rabid" UT fans were crying for Phil Fulmer's head a month ago.. I have a feeling there would have been a few schools who would love to have a coach of his caliber..

Yet again:
OSU just finished a home-and-home with Texas. They start one with USC next year, followed by Miami, Cal, and then Virginia Tech. Stop acting like they schedule only cupcakes because it just isn't true.

What is wrong with a team maturing and improving throughout the season??? In football a good trouncing can cause the team (coaching staff) to take a look at themselves and make changes... sometimes it works...other times not, and occasionally the changes create a special team. Eric says "This year again proves why college produces a better game than the NFL. From one week to the next, the scenarios change so dramatically.". Ummm did you not watch the play-offs last year? You were not impressed with the re-emergence of Philly behind their back-up QB... or the fall of 14-2 San Diego to a team that was "the best team at that moment" ... not to mention the colts dramatic win.... Yes in the pros there may be some weeks early on that are bland... but if Div 1 had a play-off system we would gain so much more in the end... and oh by the way we could all agree at the end of the year that the best team is the National Champion. Look at Ohio State and Georgia... they can move to the National Championship by not even playing a game??? That is nothing but pathetic!

diazrig... maybe Georgia? They played two... but can't even win its division? that should count against them.

I say USC. Beat Nebraska and Notre Dame (both pucks, but as Jack said, this is scheduled years in advance). Trojans will also win their conference.

Don't forget that after USC and Miami - The Buckeyes will play VaTech and Oklahoma. How can WVU and Missouri be considered that much better than everyone else? The Big East is awful and don't get me started on the Big 12 South with the powerhouses of Nebraska and Colorado. Does anyone actually think this is a better conference than the Big Ten?

Sorry Stewart but I think your wrong re: UCLA's chances of going to the Rose Bowl. True if USC, ASU and OSU lose the four way tie breaks in their favor.

But if its a four way tie with OSU and not Oregon, it first becomes a three way tie between UCLA, USC, and ASU (OSU lost to all three) who all beat one and lost one to the other two. The next rule in the tie-breaker is to look at the record against the next highest placed team in the conference. Oregon and Arizona would both have 5-4 records so to determine which of THEM would be higher in the rankings you look at their record against each other and Arizona just beat Oregon.

USC beat Arizona, UCLA lost to Arizona and ASU would have lost to Arizona. USC is conference champion.

This in fact worsens UCLA's chance because OSU is likely to beat quarterback depleted Oregon next weekend.

Jack,

I agree that with the teams they have scheduled for home-and-home series over the next several years, any criticism of soft scheduling toward OSU will be completely baseless. The last few years, this one included. . . not so much.

Michael:

Here are theconference rankings:
1 SOUTHEASTERN
2 PAC-10
3 BIG EAST
4 BIG 12
5 ATLANTIC COAST
6 BIG TEN
7 MOUNTAIN WEST
8 WESTERN ATHLETIC
9 I-A INDEPENDENTS
10 MID-AMERICAN

I guess the Big East is not as bad as you think and the Big Ten is not so good as you think.

Go Bulls!

I will take my Bulls vs. any Big Ten team in Tampa!

When people complain about the BCS they rarely take the time to compare it to what it replaced, which was not a playoff, and it's not like the BCS was chosen over a playoff, it was making the best of a non-playoff world.

The BCS solved the problem of two undefeated teams who could not play each other because of conference-bowl tie ins. It solved this problem well and gave us two great games, Texas vs. USC and Ohio St. vs. Miami that could not have happened under the old system.

Even the year when Auburn was left out, the old system would have prevented any of the undefeateds from playing each other and all three could have ended undefeated.

The BCS does no better than the old system at dealing with a messy year like this year. In fact, it makes things less entertaining because instead of many meaningful games, there is only one. For instance this year you could have Ohio St. vs. USC in the Rose, WVU v. LSU in the Sugar and Missouri v. Georgia in the Orange, with Hawaii vs. Kansas in the Fiesta. It would be possible that all of the one-loss teams could lose or none. The end would be a mess to be decided by the voters, but it would have been a really fun New Years Day (all the Bowls would have been played on one day under the old system which was much better for the fans) with lots of games that impacted the national championship.

It may be that the solution to the BCS is to only use it in years with two or more BCS conference undefeateds and forget about it in other years.

I will, note, however, that scheduling Texas - although they turned out not to be so great the last couple of years - was not soft-scheduling either. I mean, hey, USC scheduled Idaho, which as a Trojan fan, I didn't like at all.

Stating that we are not college fans if we want a playoff is moronic. Did you forget that there are playoffs in college football? It's just Division I - or whatever they want to call it. When you don't have teams playing eachother because of their respective conferences, we have no clear cut way of knowing who the best teams are. Think about last - everyine thought OSU and UM were the best two programs in CF. What happened?

for Rick - WV played both Maryland and Miss St. While not a great team or even a very good team Miss St played well and gave many teams as much as they could handle.

Although Georgia did not make it to their conference game, that should not disqualify them from the NC. Two reasons - #1, they play in a conference that has a championship. In other conferences - that have no championship - they would be in a three way tie with LSU and Tenn. If you used other conferences tie-breaker, then the team with the highest BCS ranking would advance. Instead, one head-to-head loss kicks them out of the Championship, and in theory makes them the SEC #3, instead of the Co-champions of the entire conference (see Pac-10, Big-10).

#2 - look at their last five weeks that gave them zero breaks whatsoever: W vs. Florida (BCS 10) by 12, W vs. Troy (8-3, conference champs, beat OK State) by 10, W vs. Auburn by 25 (BCS 24), W vs. Kentucky by 11 (beat LSU in overtime, lost to Tenn in overtime), W vs. GA Tech by 14 (7-5 and bowl bound). All double-digit wins vs. quality opponents. Decent arguement if it comes down to all the #2's. LSU just lost, at home, to an unranked team. Oklahoma just lost to another unranked team. VA Tech plays in the ACC (how good are they?), but would have the best arguement against GA.

Charlie, what color is the sky in your world?

LSU lost to a 7-5 Kentucky that is today unranked, and an 8-4 Arkansas that is today unranked. Besides, is a 3-overtime loss to an unranked opponent supposed to be more impressive than a regulation loss to an unranked team? That's stupid!

Ohio State has beaten no one of consequence? Ohio State lost to a 9-3 Illinois that is ranked 15 in the BCS. Also, Ohio State's computer ranking is 3rd to LSU's 7th.

"If you can't win your conference, you can't play for the NC"

I guess the voters forgot that rule in 2003 when they voted Oklahoma in after they LOST their conf. title game by 28 points. And as far as everyone complaining about LSU losing to an unranked team....who hasn't this year. LSU, USC, OSU, Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, BC, all lost to unranked teams this year. And as good as they're playing now, I don't think UGA should play for the NC either. If you ask me, the 2 most deserving teams are ranked 1 and 2 already because Mizzou's and WVA's only losses were to ranked teams. I hope UGA wins their bowl so we can make our NC game run next year.

I'm a Sooner born,
And a Sooner bred,
And when I die
I'll be Sooner dead!

Rah, Oklahoma!
Rah, Oklahoma!
Rah, Oklahoma!
OK-U!

LET'S GO SOONERS!

LETS GO BUCKEYES CAN'T KEEP A GOOD BUCK DOWN!

I will, note, however, that scheduling Texas - although they turned out not to be so great the last couple of years - was not soft-scheduling either.

Uh ... they won the National Championship the first year they played OSU.

I guess the voters forgot that rule in 2003 when they voted Oklahoma in after they LOST their conf. title game by 28 points.

That incident in 2003 is what caused them to rethink the whole thing (especially after OU lost in the NC). While they never officially passed a rule (afaik), I sincerely doubt they'd want a repeat of that debacle.

Charles, you can't be serious about UWV schedule. BTW, I like them and White/Slaton/Devine, but it is embarrassing that they know they are going to be a good team and yet fail to schedule tough teams. When was the last time Miss was tough. I'll give to OSU, they play SC, Texas, VT and others. I wish they play one more game like that, but who does? Well, maybe USC - they go against Virginia, OSU and ND (they suck but tradition).

OSU had the 2nd best strength of schedule in 2005, 38th best in 2006. Strength of schedule is only down this year due to the overall weakness of the Big-10 which OSU could not avoid. Only the bowl schedule will sort out whether SEC is over-rated or just has great parity. I believe having seen most of the Big 10 teams this year that the Big 10 will hold its own in the bowl games.

Highest ranked 2-loss team (Georgia from SEC)

Highest ranked 3-lass team (Florida from SEC)

Highest ranked 4-loss team (Auburn from SEC)

Highest ranked 5-loss team (Kentucky from SEC)

When is this SEC bubble going to burst?

Jeff, it must be dark up there where your head is.

Because neither Stanford nor Illinois could beat Arkansas or Kentucky.

AND yes the SEC is that good, I only hope the bowls help show that this year.

So LSU deserves a #5 ranking because it couldn't beat Kentucky and Arkansas either?

Also, you hope the bowls show SEC superiority? You hope? Wow, that kind of confidence is overwhelming. I concede. NOT!

Netizen,

Which is right where LSU and tOSU are ranked in the only one that matters . . the BCS.

Why worry about LSU's ranking in the AP? I don't, as a Tiger fan.

What I'd like to know is how LSU gets ranked behind Virginia Tech . . I thought I saw a game between those two a while back . . .

*shrug*.

Sas

Florida has not lost to any unranked opponents this year, if you are going by current standings. BCS #4 , #7 and #24. But I am doubtful this is quite as important a factor as is being suggested in these discussions. I would not rank Fla ahead of USC right now even though the USC loss was a bad one. All must be placed in the context of the season and the times.

Two things:

It is absolutely ridiculous that some conferences have to play a championship game and some don't. Look at this scenario: Mizzou loses to OU and Kansas ends up ranked higher than either team in the final BCS standings....total BS.

Secondly, WTF is going on ranking LSU so high? They lost at home (again) to an unranked team and they are the seventh best team in the country? What a joke. When they lose to Tennessee in the championship game, are they going to drop all the way to eighth?

chrth,

I said scheduling Texas was not soft-scheduling.

Michael, OSU fan huh? Some of you can be really dumb. The Big East is not awful, the Big 10 is this year, and I am a Big 10 fan. To put a few things in perspective, here is a the records of the top 4 teams in each conference against other BCS teams with .500 or better records with the top 4 teams I used from the conferences in parentheses:

Big 10 (OSU, UM, UW, Ill.): 1-1
Big 12 (Tex, OU, Mizz., KU): 1-0
Big East (USF, WVU, UConn, Cincy): 4-1
Pac 10 (Ore., USC, ASU, Or St.): 1-1
ACC (BC, VT, UVa, Clem): 2-1
SEC (LSU, Fla, Tenn, UGa): 4-1

This is just a snapshot, but I think it shows that the Big East doesn't exactly schedule a whole lot of cream puffs. If anything that was the Big 12, aside from Mizzou. (OU did schedule the U, but the U was awful this year).

Finally, I am not using this to say one conference is better than the other, but don't bash teams for playing weak schedules if you don't have facts. I think 95% of us would agree that WVU and Mizzou deserve to play for the BCS title if they win next week. They have done the most.

LSU was only tied by two SEC teams. The SEC has parity. This proves it. As far as I can see LSU deserves #1 spot. It has not lost a regulation game.

helzapoppin:

I was questioning the "although they turned out not to be so great the last couple of years" comment. My point was Texas finished #1 the first year and top 20 (15?) the second year. The fact that they were not so great this year (and maybe a little not so great last year) doesn't change that fact.

How crazy is college football when someone argues with someone who is basically already agreeing with them? Sheesh.

Bias towards LSU? It's called schedule difficulty. Pac-10 doesn't have it (illustrated nicely by the dismal possibility, with one week left, of UCLA playing in the Rose Bowl); The SEC does (illustrated nicely by UGA's being the top two-loss team not enought to earn a shot at the SEC Championship). Schedule difficulty is the problem with the BCS, its not adequately compensated for. If Georgia should be discounted because it didn't get a shot to win its conference championship then Mizzoui should be for the mediocrity involved in winning its own. The fact is, we have a prospect of a EXTREMELY lackluster NC game. A WVU-OSU matchup would at least bring some credibility to the game, a sense of two of the best teams playing. However, I said "of the best"; the best team at the end of the season would be decided in a UGA-USC Rose Bowl. God we need a playoff system.

for diazrig - Your thoughts on the WV schedule are well spoken, and perhaps my bias is showing through a bit too much. I am an old timer who believes that if you want to claim the crown you beat numerous champions over time on the field. So I look at OSU and WV this year and they seem very close. But OSU and Tressel have been there and consistently stood with the best recently. That does not mean they would beat this WV team of course. It's just that they look so close right now that I look at history to decide. And when I look at recent history or current history I do not see titans or near titans that most other confs can boast. So there is the bias showing through again with the Big East teams that WV played. With their schedule and struggles this year in close games with Ill and MSU I am not proud to champion OSU for the NC. But I do give them the edge over WV and Missou. I hope this makes some sense. WV has done more to convince me than Missou, but again it is a slight edge. There's just too few quality wins for me to feel comfortable about anything.

Helzapoppin:

Sorry, the ESPN idiots got me riled up.

The SEC fans are crazy lunatics. I think if every team went 6-6 they would still say it was parity within the conference but that they are better than all the other teams in the country.

How come when other conferences have parity and their teams beat up on each other those conferences suck but the SEC is sooo good?

The SEC is a good conference and may be the best but college football is parity. Any good team can beat any other good team on any day.

Go Bulls!

I f college football had a playoff the last two teams would not be USC and Georgia. A lot of people are saying these are the two best teams right now but the odds are they would not end up in the NC game.

And why would OSU lend more credibility to the NC game? I wish people would just say that they want one of the traditional powers in the game and that they are biased. Why don't we tinker with the bCS to make sure a traditional power has to be in the NC game no matter what. The bias is there in the human polls and the fans anyway.

for ian - I've said it before and I am now reading it mentioned by writers, a 3-loss Fla team with Tebow may be more attractive to a BCS bowl than a 2-loss GA team. Fla, at its best, trampled Tenn and stayed even with LSU. GA lost to S. Car and Tenn. Both Fla and LSU struggled after they played each other and it was because of the beating they laid on each other.
As a Fla fan I make no excuses for the GA loss and if GA is chosen ahead of Fla in the bowls, give whoever you play a taste of SEC misery. But I could see a bowl committee thinking Fla would play a better $$$game, and I myself think that a rested Fla with Tebow is a worthy opponent for WV, OSU, USC and any team the Big 12 names.

for sofl95 - If you were managing a chess team, could pick one member for the NC game, would you go with your traditional power, or a newcomer with about the same record? Right now I think USC and OSU should play in the NC, but that doesn't mean that Missou or WV wouldn't do better. For the NC game with all else being similar I pick traditional powers. I think WV needs to schedule home and home with a Texas team like OSU did. Beating Missou this year in the NC just looks to me like a big win in a pond not as big as it has been before.

Is the NC for traditional powers? You maybe right about WVU. The hardest team/game they played this year they lost (South Florida (2 years in a row)).

That is fine if people want a traditional team but lets call it what it is; bias against smaller or newer schools.

I like the Boise State game last year and hope Hawaii plays in the Sugar this year. I personally like some change rather than see the same old teams play again and again sometimes deserving it and sometimes on bias.

BTW...USC lost to STANFORD at home who lost to Notre Dame. No one who oses to one of the worst teams in college football should play for the NC. In college football you need to win all your games and if you lose not get embarrassed!

Once again here is the bias. USC loses to a pathetic team at home but evryone conveniently forgets!

USC lost at home to STANFORD! keep saying it and maybe it will finally sink in!

For diazrig -

You wrote:

"It should be mandatory that you play two BCS teams in OOC games if you want to be in a BCS Bowl game."

I agree that strength of schedule is a critical factor in assessing a team's proper bowl placement, and I might be missing something, but how do you propose to ensure that a sufficient number of teams could meet the criteria you recommended? I'd appreciate it if 1) you could further define "BCS teams" and 2) perhaps you could give us a list of teams that currently meet your criteria. Thanks.

Every pre-season, all us college football fans argue about who's conference is the best, who's team, who's players and so on. Isn't amazing that we still don't have any answers. Is the tradionally powerful SEC really that good? LSU is the only program that has a quality win outside its conference. The Big 10 - well we haven't seen any. The Pac 10, I don't think Neb or ND qualify. The Big 12, can't think of one. Big East, well if Cincy beating Oregon St works for you.

Its time for us fans to start demanding more quality teams from our ADs and coaches. This is not what college football is suppose to be about - "lets play weak teams and hope to be undeated at the end of the season." It's a joke!!!

Is the NC for traditional powers?

Well, uh, yes, it kinda is.

The BCS was created by the six football conferences that are the homes of the traditional powers. The only non-conference traditional power, Notre Dame, has (or had) unique