As it stands now … (BCS)
 

Team: Loss + Poll Avg (AP,Coach) + Computer Avg (A,B,C,M,N,S,W) +SOS - QW (team) = BCS
x = not yet reported

Oklahoma: 1+ 3.0 (3,3) + 1.20 (1,x,1,2,x,1,1) + 0.44 - 0.5 (Texas) = 5.14
LSU: 1+ 2.0 (2,2) + 1.80 (2,x,2,1,x,2,2) + 1.16 - 0.0 = 5.96
USC: 1+ 1.0 (1,1) + 3.20 (3,x,3,3,x,4,3) + 1.48 - 0.0 = 6.68

Billingsley says he's posting at 4:30 CT.

Updates as I get them.

Thanks - I was waitin' for you to weigh in.

From all indications I've seen, USC will be number one in both polls, but will not go to the Sugar Bowl.

The LSU/Oklahoma matchup is okay by me, as USC hasn't played a tough enough schedule to get invited to the big dance. The Pac-10 was a joke this year, and USC's "big game" was against a team (Washington State) that thought it would be fun to lose to crappy Washington a few weeks later.

LSU and Oklahoma played far more top-twenty-five teams. The BCS gets it right again - LSU and Oklahoma are rewarded by the computer for playing more difficult schedules.

AP reported 20 minutes ago. USC #1, LSU #2, Oklahoma #3. No change so far.

Massey decided to prove me wrong about Oklahoma remaining #1 despite the loss. Maybe he still has MOV hidden in his method. ;)

The BCS gets it right again? Aren't the Trojans ranked #1 in TWO different polls, by COACHES and the media?! Hmmmm...

Wolfe's up. Only nickel changes in BCS points.

Coaches are biased for the buddies. Media are biased for those the individual sportswriter likes. Computers can be biased for specific qualities in teams, but not necessarily for teams themselves. Throw them all together and hopefully the biases cancel out.

Oklahoma lost to Kansas State (BCS #10), LSU lost to Florida (BCS #15), USC lost to California (computer consensus #39).

Oklahoma's best win is against Texas (BCS #6), LSU's is against Georgia (BCS #11), USC's is against Washington State (BCS #16).

Oklahoma's SOS is #11, LSU's is #29, and USC is #37.

The BCS now has its Nightmare Scenario™: three one-loss teams with legitmate claims for a spot in the Championship, and the popular #1 being left out.

I thought a backroom deal would be cut to get Southern Cal in, but apparently no one told the computers about it. (How do you bribe a computer anyway? Offer it a big-ass upgrade?)

The BCS bigshits ruled out a playoff system at the beginning of the season. Now they'll need one just to keep the Pac-10 (and maybe the Big 10) on board.

BCS is a complete joke, and I hope that the way this season ended will finally get rid of that piece of shit system. Aren't sports for the fans anyway? I have yet to hear a fan who doesn't want a playoff...

USC #1 in both human polls, like I said LSU woulden't be #1 in ANY poll, is now locked out of the BCS. OU and LSU will be playing for the national championship. It's on the front page of ESPN right now.

So much for the hotshits around here who argued how the BCS worked the last 2 years.

Guess your theory is out the window, what a bunch of bullshit.

fuck USC. they dont deserve this by playing a k-state like schedule ;).

they played a sorry ass oregon state at home last week, while LSU played a top 5 georgia @ georgia. the human polls should've placed them at #1.

Billingsley is up.

Southern California finished 0.116 points behind LSU for #2, 300.567 versus 300.683.

NYTimes hasn't release, but it's too late for USC anyway.

Please tell me what USC could have done differently when they scheduled these games? They picked what was thought to be a very tough non-conference schedule, like they do EVERY year (last year they had the toughest). Auburn was thought to be a national title contender, Notre Dame was #18 in the preseason coaches poll, Hawaii was #34, and BYU was #37 in the preseason. For Oklahoma, North Texas was #56 (one vote), Alabama had no votes, Fresno State was #36, and UCLA was #32. For LSU, Louisiana-Monroe (lol) had no votes, Arizona had no votes, Western Illinois had no votes (a decent I-AA team and yes I know this was a last second schedule change), and Louisiana Tech had no votes. That is a K-State type non-conference schedule if I ever saw one. What if LSU had to play a real team instead of Western Illinois? My point is that a lame Notre Dame-Syracuse game or a lame Boise State-Hawaii game should not determine who plays for a title.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
I think all 3 teams are equally deserving of a shot at the title. Unfortunately, this messed up BCS system won't give them that shot.

maybe these teams looked tough in the pre-season, but it turned out they were NOT. USC played the shitty teams. it's not USC's fault that the teams they scheduled turned into shit, but they should only get credit for beating what is really shitty teams.

8/13 teams OU played had .500 or better records and 2 of them finished top10 in the bcs.

I feel what you guys are saying, I just think that USC should not be criticized for their scheduling.

In a way, it is kind of good that USC was the one shut out because they have a damn good backup, the Rose Bowl. I mean most young kids on the west coast or in Big-10 country dream of playing in the Rose Bowl, not the Sugar Bowl or any other bowl, so if the Rose is the alternative, then it is not AS sour. LSU and OU don't have that tradition in the Rose Bowl, it would have been really sour for them. By the way, if we still had the old-school 1980's era bowl system, the bowls would have been something like:

Rose: USC vs. Michigan
Fiesta: at large vs. at large
Sugar: LSU vs. Oklahoma
Orange: K-state vs. at large

In that system, if OU wins the Big-12 (Big-8 back then) then they go to the Orange Bowl. But then again, there would not have been a Big-12 title game either :)

Interesting

The thing there is, part of the reason the Rose Bowl agreed to join the BCS was the condition that if the #1 and #2 teams wern't from the Big 10 or Pac 10, they get those teams, so they could keep their tradition. Personally, I'm suprised the BCS people allowed that tradition to remain :rolleyes: