Texas new #1 in BCS

[Cowboys 4 life]

I think USC deserves to be #1 and I'm a UCLA fan who hates them.


If it comes down to 4 undefeated teams I feel we will see USC and VT play for the Nat title. I think VT has a tougher remaining schedule than both but won't vault themselves to #1.

This is only like the 15th mile of a marathon though. There is bound to be some change before the end.


USC, VT, and Texas are on a different level than GA and Bama IMO. GA had trouble with Ark who USC killed by 50 and put backups in in the 3rd qtr. Now no starting QB forget about it. Bama has really only had 1 impressive victory against FL and a bunch of games where they just beat teams without the exclamation point.

Texas has had 2 real nice wins and has decisively won the games they are heavily favored in but does not have a tough remaining schedule.

VT if they can get through BC and Miami I feel they will vault ahead of Texas and play USC.

Either way we will have an argument on our hands when season ends.


I like the tourney idea. Something like a march madness but on a smaller scale. Thats the only way to accurately determine who is the Nat Champ.

USAToday's Strength of Schedule has Texas at #1, USC at #2 and Virginia Tech at #3.

I don't think VA Tech will go undefeated, but if they do they'd have a better argument for playing Texas than USC. I don't see how you can leave Texas out of the Title game when they've played stronger competition than USC.

Of course, all this does is make the argument once again that there needs to be a playoff.

Then USA today doesn't know what they are talking about.

Lets look at the schedules of both teams in question:
Texas
Sat, Oct 29 at Oklahoma State
Sat, Nov 5 at Baylor
Sat, Nov 12 Kansas
Fri, Nov 25 at Texas A&M

No teams in top 25 left to play unless they meet up with one in the extra conference game.

VT
Thu, Oct 27 (11) Boston College
Sat, Nov 5 (6) Miami (FL)
Sat, Nov 19 at Virginia
Sat, Nov 26 North Carolina

2 teams in top 25 almost top 10 left to play. Plus a possible FSU matchup who is #10.

USC
Sat, Oct 29 Washington State
Sat, Nov 5 Stanford
Sat, Nov 12 at (21) California
Sat, Nov 19 (24) Fresno State
Sat, Dec 3 (8) UCLA 4:30 pm

3 top 25 teams left to play.


Now come on. It doesn't take a genious to clearly see who has the toughest remaining schedule.

VT followed by USC then Texas. USA today has it exactly opposite.


If VT wins out they should play USC for title without question. Texas is good but I look at who they have played and see only 2 real challenges in Ohio st and TTech.

[daullaz]

USA Today's strength of schedule is only based on games already played, I believe. Once some of the games you listed take place, it will change.

[JtotheF]

So I guess 29 straight means nothing...

[Free Bagel]

Stop taking the teams and dividing them by 119 and acting like there would be a super tiny chance of each team making it. There's not 119 teams. SMU and garbage teams like that don't even count.

[VHawk15]

I'd like to see a four team playoff. That would satisfy me. Here's how it would work, using the top 4 BCS teams currently:

1) USC vs. 4) Georgia
2) Texas vs. 3) VA Tech

Let's just say, randomly, that the results are that USC and VA Tech win. So then,

Championship game: 1) USC vs. 3) VA Tech
3rd place: 2) Texas vs. 4) Georgia

All four games are held at the four bowl stadiums. Sugar, Orange, Rose, and Fiesta.

Of course, you could make the argument that people are still going to get left out, but expanding the field from two to four makes a huge difference. Right now, Bama would be pretty much screwed, but Georgia will play Bama in the SEC championship most likely anyway, so the correct team would make the playoff.

[moonhead]

texas still sucks.

[Free Bagel]

Of course, you could make the argument that people are still going to get left out, but expanding the field from two to four makes a huge difference. Right now, Bama would be pretty much screwed, but Georgia will play Bama in the SEC championship most likely anyway, so the correct team would make the playoff.

The other problem is that there's really no way to set it up such that it works out perfectly.

I mean, what if there is a 4 team playoff, and we have two undefeated teams that are clearly the two best teams in the nation, and then the 3rd and 4th place teams have losses and clearly aren't on the same level as the other two.

Now the #1 or #2 team could come out and just have a bad day in the "first round" of the playoff, and nobody gets to see the #1 vs. #2 matchup that was being anticipated all year.

Even further, what happens if a two loss team is #4 and wins the playoff over an undefeated team? They still have a worse record. What if they came from the same conference and the previously undefeated team actually beat the 2 loss team in the regular season? Now you'd have two teams that split in head to head, and one with a better record NOT being the champion.

I don't like the idea of a playoff at all myself. But I am with you that it shouldn't be any bigger than 4 teams. Expanding it any bigger just makes too many regular season games pointless. Every game matters, that's what makes college football so great. With even an 8 team playoff, we're looking at games like the USC/ND game this year not even making a difference. Even moreso, good teams in weak conferences would have even less riding on each game, because they could then still afford to lose a game even though they weren't playing anyone good.

Likewise, just from personal experience, pretty much from the early 90's through about 2001 there was almost always a birth in the national championship game riding on the Florida/FSU game. Have a playoff any larger than 4 teams and both Florida and FSU would have made it pretty much every year regardless of the outcome of what at the time was one of the biggest regular season games.

Tradition is such a huge part of college football as well, and here we are talking about changing something so fundamental to the game that's been around since the get-go.

[VHawk15]

Of course, you could make the argument that people are still going to get left out, but expanding the field from two to four makes a huge difference. Right now, Bama would be pretty much screwed, but Georgia will play Bama in the SEC championship most likely anyway, so the correct team would make the playoff.

The other problem is that there's really no way to set it up such that it works out perfectly.

I mean, what if there is a 4 team playoff, and we have two undefeated teams that are clearly the two best teams in the nation, and then the 3rd and 4th place teams have losses and clearly aren't on the same level as the other two.

Now the #1 or #2 team could come out and just have a bad day in the "first round" of the playoff, and nobody gets to see the #1 vs. #2 matchup that was being anticipated all year.

Even further, what happens if a two loss team is #4 and wins the playoff over an undefeated team? They still have a worse record. What if they came from the same conference and the previously undefeated team actually beat the 2 loss team in the regular season? Now you'd have two teams that split in head to head, and one with a better record NOT being the champion.

Right, but that is naturally going to happen with any playoff system, and it's part of the fun associated with it. Look at the NCAA tournament. Upsets happen several times a day, and no one cares what anyone's regular season record is. This NCAA football tournament wouldn't be that extreme, but it would ensure that teams must come to play week in and week out.

Also, being undefeated doesn't necessarily mean anything. For instance, let's say a team in the Pac-10 is undefeated but hasn't really played anyone (maybe one top 25 team all year), and they are matched up against an SEC team with one loss, but that has beaten three top 15 teams. You're telling me it wouldn't be just if the SEC team defeated the Pac 10 team in the first round of the playoff?