2012 College Football


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Nov 11, 2012 9:31 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:The biggest mistake that's been made by the BCS honchos in the history of the BCS, was the decision to completely remove the margin-of-victory (MOV) component from all of the computer rankings after one-loss Nebraska, which didn't win its conference, but had a lot of blowout wins, got into the BCS championship game over one-loss, PAC-10 champion Oregon, which won five of its games by a touchdown or less. After it was revealed that the MOV component caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football, Oregon coach Mike Belotti led the lobbying effort to have MOV removed from the formula, which was done the following year. Ironically, it's the lack of a MOV component that's hurting Oregon and helping Notre Dame this year, and I think it would be poetic justice if somehow this caused the Ducks a chance to play for the Crystal Football. What's also ironic is that the SEC, which has been the strongest conference during the BCS era, benefits the most from not having MOV as part of the BCS formula.


The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:51 am

Dutra5 wrote:The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.

Don't bet any money on it. Kansas State is a strong #1 but Oregon is a weak #2, barely ahead of Notre Dame, mainly because of their weak computer ranking. They're actually ranked behind Florida in the computers, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could drop further in the computers due to the top-10 games left to be played by SEC and ACC teams. Also, don't forget that voters can be fickle as evidenced by Oregon losong some points after giving up 51 points to USC, and another unimpressive win or an Irish woodshedding USC would be all it would take to affect the polls a little. As for the Ducks overall rankiong, all it would take would be for them to drop a spot in one or two of the computers or for a handful of voters to move Kansas State to #1 and/or move Notre Dame to #2, and the Ducks would be the team left out in the cold on December 1. If you don't believe me, do the math.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:09 am

Thankfully, nd was pushed to 3rd. 6 SEC schools in the top-10 and not a single Big-10 school in the entire top-10, though one school, Michigan, made the top-25. Is it time to consider removing the Big-10 from AQ status? Dropping them below the Big East? Clearly the brand and quality of football being played in that conference is below the SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12; I might also include the ACC in the above Big-10 group

And, Bruce's point is real. New offenses and diluted teams (85 scholarships) -and the fact that everyone plays on TV every week now- has brought about parity. In this environment it might not be considered an upset for nonAQ schools to win over auto AQ schools.

One last thing: if nd loses to USC, how far would they drop?
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:16 am

1 Oregon (45) 10-0 1,485 2
2 Kansas State (14) 10-0 1,451 3
3 Notre Dame (1) 10-0 1,382 4
4 Alabama 9-1 1,259 1
5 Georgia 9-1 1,223 5
6 Ohio State 10-0 1,212 5[In Big Ten last time I looked]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:24 am

preston wrote:Dropping them below the Big East?

You can't be serious. :?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:15 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
preston wrote:Dropping them below the Big East?

You can't be serious. :?

of course, jazz, you should know that by now...

26mi235 wrote:6 Ohio State 10-0 1,212 5[In Big Ten last time I looked]


1. Conversation was focused on BCS.

    1 Kansas State .9674
    2 Oregon .9497
    3 Notre Dame .9396
    4 Alabama .8534
    5 Georgia .8328
    6 Florida .7955
    7 LSU .7331
    8 Texas A&M .6621
    9 South Carolina .6349
    10 Florida State .6071

2. OSU is on time-out for previous transgressions (Which are Bull****. I don't see any reason why an athlete couldn't trade a signature or jersey for a tattoo, car, sex, drugs or anything else...but I digress)

3. I wouldn't be surprised if they were drubbed at seasons end by MI; big 10 is overrated.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:29 am

preston wrote:3. I wouldn't be surprised if they were drubbed at seasons end by MI


They don't have to survive the trip to Madison on Saturday.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:09 am

jazzcyclist wrote:As for the Ducks overall rankiong,

Ducks are gonna improve in the computer rankings if they win out, they have a significantly tougher remaining schedule than ND. Stanford and Oregon State are ranked 11 and 12 in the computers right now, beating them would improve Oregon's position a lot; plus the Pac championship game is most likely against a ranked opponent.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Dutra5 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:29 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:The only way Oregon gets to the BCS championship game is to win out and should they do so they cannot be passed by ND. So they won't be hurt by the lack of MOV.

Don't bet any money on it. Kansas State is a strong #1 but Oregon is a weak #2, barely ahead of Notre Dame, mainly because of their weak computer ranking. They're actually ranked behind Florida in the computers, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could drop further in the computers due to the top-10 games left to be played by SEC and ACC teams. Also, don't forget that voters can be fickle as evidenced by Oregon losong some points after giving up 51 points to USC, and another unimpressive win or an Irish woodshedding USC would be all it would take to affect the polls a little. As for the Ducks overall rankiong, all it would take would be for them to drop a spot in one or two of the computers or for a handful of voters to move Kansas State to #1 and/or move Notre Dame to #2, and the Ducks would be the team left out in the cold on December 1. If you don't believe me, do the math.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs


Oregon has to play two ranked teams in the next two weeks which will solidify their computer rankings plus the PAC 12 championship game as well. How does ND possibly pass them playing USC who Oregon already played and beat?

The guy who does the BCS analysis for ESPN....the site you posted...has stated that if all three teams win out that it is Kstate that can be passed by ND but only in the longest of long shots. If all three win out it will almost assuredly be Kstate vs. Oregon.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:32 am

Dutra5 wrote:The guy who does the BCS analysis for ESPN....the site you posted...has stated that if all three teams win out that it is Kstate that can be passed by ND but only in the longest of long shots. If all three win out it will almost assuredly be Kstate vs. Oregon.

If you're talking about Brad Edwards, he's been wrong in prognostications before, so don't take his word as the gospel. However, I will concede that things look pretty good for the Ducks if they win their remaining games convincingly, but if they struggle, or if Notre Dame beats USC more impressively than they did, all bets are off.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby KevinM » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:02 pm

DrJay wrote:I'm kind of practical, and don't care too passionately about college football, so I understand a top 20 better when it contains the Alabamas, Notre Dames, USCs, Ohio Sts and Michigans, and not the Louisiana Techs, Boise Sts and Kansas Sts. Get rid of the formers and throw in the latters and I just get confused. Thus, I'm glad to see ND back in the fray.


K-State was so bad for so long that people look past the fact that they've been a mainstay in the top 25 since 1993, not much different than UConn basketball.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby gh » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:35 pm

Improbable, but Ohio State could still end up as No. 1?

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art ... 028569.php
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jhc68 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:19 pm

ND has to beat USC in the Coliseum to win out. And they need to beat SC as convincingly as Oregon did.
The first big-time football game I attended was the 1964 game wherein ND was 93 seconds away from the national championship but Rod Sherman broke the Irish hearst by hauling in the winning touchdown pass from Craig Fertig.
SC has a pretty fair passing game this year but back in '64 they had a running back named Garrett.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby 26mi235 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:31 pm

gh wrote:Improbable, but Ohio State could still end up as No. 1?

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/art ... 028569.php


They have to win this weekend :mrgreen:

I am seriously surprised; I saw that Wisconsin, an unranked team with three losses, is a favorite over undefeated #6 Ohio State. Must have been a misprint...
Last edited by 26mi235 on Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:27 am

Someone call the wambulance for Jimbo Fisher. His team plays in one of the weakest AQ conferences, he had two FCS teams on his schedule this year, including hapless Savannah State which should be in division II, and now he's whining because his team isn't getting any love from the BCS computers.
Lamenting his team's position in computer polls of the latest BCS standings, Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher railed against the use of computers in determining the standings, saying he'd prefer a move back to a pre-BCS system in which human pollsters simply ranked teams at the conclusion of a season to determine a champion.


"I think it stinks," Fisher said. "I think the BCS and how we do it with these computers, I think we're ruining it. And the playoff isn't going to solve it, either. They've got to change how we pick the top teams in this country. It's not working. I think it was better in the old days when you did it by the eye test and you didn't have a championship game."


http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... bcs-system

He should be put in a straitjacket for even suggesting that college football go back to the pre-BCS system in which the #1 and #2 teams would routinely play in different bowls.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:21 am

"I think it stinks," Fisher said. "I think the BCS and how we do it with these computers, I think we're ruining it. And the playoff isn't going to solve it, either. They've got to change how we pick the top teams in this country. It's not working. I think it was better in the old days when you did it by the eye test and you didn't have a championship game."

Spoken like a true Luddite, who would change his tune to whatever system he thinks best serves his needs. I love FSU - not a fan of Jimbo.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:31 am

jazzcyclist wrote:Someone call the wambulance for Jimbo Fisher. His team plays in one of the weakest AQ conferences, he had two FCS teams on his schedule this year, including hapless Savannah State which should be in division II, and now he's whining because his team isn't getting any love from the BCS computers.

Plus in another out-of-conference game they played South Florida, a team that's tied for last in the Big East. The computers got this right, not ranking Florida State near the top 10 at this point.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby DrJay » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:33 am

Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff. Not an eight-team playoff. Four will always do just fine.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby j-a-m » Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:40 am

DrJay wrote:Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff.

This season a four-team would work just fine, with three conferences way ahead of the rest, and only one (eligible) undefeated team outside of those conferences. There may be seasons, though, with more than three strong conferences and/or more than one undefeated team from other conferences.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:32 am

Here's an idea. Why don't track statiticians start using the letter "C" to designate FAT times that werer un on cinder tracks? For example, why not list Bob Hayes PR as 10.06C? It would be similar to the "A" for times run at altitude, except that "C" would enhance the performance, not diminish it like "A' does. And so for the list of fastest football players ever the list would be:

    Jim Hines 9.95A
    Trindon Holliday 10.00
    Bob Hayes - 10.06C

Would the "C" designation be enough to satisfy folks who feel that Hayes doesn't get the credit that he deserves?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:11 am

Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him or other athletes like C for cinders, or M for modern techniques (Arthur Lydiard, born 1917; Bud Winter, born 1909...several years before 2012 :roll: ) or Y ... because they want to.

Track and Field is about time or a distance/height or a combination of those factors. It's NOT an algorithm where some middle-aged reformed couch potato is World-record holder when height, weight, age, surface, race (someone will ultimately want to factor that too), altitude, barometric pressure and previous meal are taken into account. One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading. If we can't roll it back, let's preserve at least some part of this sport for what IS - is.

Thankfully we still see a 9.69 (+2.0) as the world-record over a 9.70 (-1.0).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:30 am

preston wrote:Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.

While you're totally correct about the nonsense of age-grading in Masters T&F, there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby preston » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:24 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Hayes gets EXACTLY the credit he deserves, 10.06. The problem is when people try to attribute more time to him . . . One part of this sport (masters) has already gone down that nonsense road with age-grading.

[...] there is a fundamental difference when trying to equate Hayes's 1964 10.06 as a 2012 10.06. He would OBVIOUSLY be faster on a modern track with modern spikes. Teleport him through time and space - unchanged - into the London final and he's AT LEAST sub-9.90, if not 9.80.

:lol: sub-9.90? sub-9.80? :lol: Well at least you didn't say sub-9.60 this time. Trust... no better than 9.93, imo. By your assessments Figuerola would be the only sub-10 cuban (which is about right) and Jerome would be one of only 3 Canadians - and the only one to be actually born in The northern provinces of the United States of America. I think the allowances are not that great - my opinion. I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:02 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Here's an idea. Why don't track statiticians start using the letter "C" to designate FAT times that werer un on cinder tracks? For example, why not list Bob Hayes PR as 10.06C? It would be similar to the "A" for times run at altitude, except that "C" would enhance the performance, not diminish it like "A' does. And so for the list of fastest football players ever the list would be:

    Jim Hines 9.95A
    Trindon Holliday 10.00
    Bob Hayes - 10.06C

Would the "C" designation be enough to satisfy folks who feel that Hayes doesn't get the credit that he deserves?

I just realized that I posted this on the wrong thread. :oops: GH, if you don't mind, would you please move my post and the ones that responed to it over to the Trindon Holliday thread so as not hijack the college footbal thread?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:33 pm

preston wrote:I have to believe that at a certain point of force/speed surface MAY not make that much of a difference - again, my opinion.

You bounce a steel ball on a modern track and then on a cinder track (perhaps in lane 1 after a distance race) and you tell me whether you see much of a difference in force return . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:39 pm

DrJay wrote:Yet another season in which we need a four-team playoff.

I don't think so. Today we found out once again why they play the games.

SEC! SEC! SEC!

:lol:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:43 pm

I think preston needs to put on suicide watch after what went down tonight. :lol:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:46 pm

Stanford beats Oregon!!!

FORK THE DORKS!!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:49 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:How 'bout dat Cardinal!

bump
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby guru » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:55 pm

A damn shame Ohio State isn't eligible for postseason. Buckeyes/Irish, Meyer/Kelly. Would be a helluva matchup from so many angles(assuming both win next week, which at this rate is a big assumption lol)
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Dutra5 » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:33 pm

Has it dawned on Chip that at some point in any given season he's going to need a kicker?
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby athleticshushmail » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:59 am

Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.
athleticshushmail
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:22 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 18, 2012 7:31 am

Dutra5 wrote:Has it dawned on Chip that at some point in any given season he's going to need a kicker?

Bobby Bowden and Chris Petersen feel his pain.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Pego » Sun Nov 18, 2012 8:32 am

athleticshushmail wrote:Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.


ND would have to beat USC first. I would not bet on it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:11 am

Pego wrote:
athleticshushmail wrote:Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.

ND would have to beat USC first. I would not bet on it.

Look at the common opponent - Stanford. All three are about the same. The two factors weighing against ND right now is that it's in LA and that the Trojans are looking to take it out on somebody that they're having such an inconsistent year. They'd love to be the giant-killer. The numbers USC put up against Oregon were impressive and they CAN play defense, just not in every game. I see it as a pick-em game (which ain't saying much for the undefeated Irish, since SC is 7-4!).
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:42 am

guru wrote:A damn shame Ohio State isn't eligible for postseason. Buckeyes/Irish, Meyer/Kelly. Would be a helluva matchup from so many angles(assuming both win next week, which at this rate is a big assumption lol)


Ohio State gets murdered by a good team. They barely escaped from several decent or so-so teams (Indiana almost beat them, and then lost to Wisconsin at home the next week 62-17). Wisconsin is not a bad team, with two OT losses, one by 3 and another to a much-better than anticipated Oregon State team on the road before they canned their new Offensive Coordinator (they had to replace about four coaches).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:02 pm

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:
athleticshushmail wrote:Alabama is going to beat Notre Dame by 35 if they play each other, these two teams aren't even on the same planet.

ND would have to beat USC first. I would not bet on it.

Look at the common opponent - Stanford. All three are about the same. The two factors weighing against ND right now is that it's in LA and that the Trojans are looking to take it out on somebody that they're having such an inconsistent year. They'd love to be the giant-killer. The numbers USC put up against Oregon were impressive and they CAN play defense, just not in every game. I see it as a pick-em game (which ain't saying much for the undefeated Irish, since SC is 7-4!).


Agreed. All which is likely moot if Barkley can't or doesn't play.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:42 pm

Dutra5 wrote:Agreed. All which is likely moot if Barkley can't or doesn't play.

It is indeed looking like Barkley is done for the season. :(
That gives ND clear sailing into the BCS Bowl. I can't see Bama losing to Ga in the SEC game, so I'm officially calling the season. All hail the National Champion Tide.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:15 pm

Last night Brad Edwards predicted that the rankings would be:

    1. Notre Dame
    2. Alabama
    3. Georgia
    4. Florida
    5. Kansas State
I think Oregon, not Kansas State will be #5, but we'll find out in about another hour. As losses go, Oregon had a quality loss while Kansas State's loss was a really bad one.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 2012 College Football

Postby Marlow » Sun Nov 18, 2012 4:25 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:Last night Brad Edwards predicted that the rankings would be:

    1. Notre Dame
    2. Alabama
    3. Georgia
    4. Florida
    5. Kansas State
I think Oregon, not Kansas State will be #5, but we'll find out in about another hour. As losses go, Oregon had a quality loss while Kansas State's loss was a really bad one.


The BCS standings will be out soon, but cbssports.com has the "BCS rankings" 8 hours earlier by applying the formula themselves. This is what they had this morning:

1. Notre Dame
2. Alabama
3. Georgia
4. Florida
5. Oregon
6. Kansas State
7. LSU
8. Stanford
9. Texas A&M
10. Florida State
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests