Quantcast

BCS Computers Need to Go

October 15, 2007 By 6 Comments

OK, either the computers need to go, or the people programming them need to go. Or they seriously need fixing. I just prefer to eliminate them completely since I’m into the dramatic. I won’t even bother getting too complex for you; I’ll keep this simple. Just check out where USC is ranked by the computers. I’ll only show the top 15 for our purposes:

You see all those zeros? You know what that means? They mean that those computers don’t have USC ranked in the Top 25. So I ask you, how is it possible that three ranking systems in the country don’t have USC included in their Top 25? What the eff kind of system is this that we’re dealing with? I don’t think I want to be a part of a system that doesn’t have what clearly is one of the better teams in the country ranked amongst the Top 25. It’s absolute horse manure.

Share

Around The Web


Filed Under: College Football
  • http://obscuresportsquarterly.wordpress.com Gilbert

    I’m actually not that surprised or disturbed by that, as someone who has followed the BCS closely.

    Keep in mind that computers only look at what a team has done objectively, not their talent level or their potential.

    USC’s four Pac-10 games have been against the four worst teams in the conference if you look at the standings. And they lost to one of them.

    Their other wins were to Idaho and Nebraska, the latter of which has underachieved to a 4-3 record this year.

    After Notre Dame this week, USC’s remaining five games are against teams with winning records — USC’s computer rankings would rise dramatically if they beat those teams. Should USC win out, they will move into the top 5 in every computer ranking, I can almost guarantee it.

  • http://svpstyle.com ScottVanPeltStyle.com

    Who does USF have to defeat to make #1, the freakin’ Monstars?

    Their body of work eliminates OSU.

  • http://UCLAradio.com the Driver

    Larry

    What kinda f UCLA alum are you? You should be relishing in the demise SUC. They have played no one and looked bad in every game they won except Nebaska (who fired their AD today btw fr lack of ogress in football). They lost to one of theorst teams in college Football (stanford) and should have lost too two of the worst teams in the PAC 10 (U of A and Washington). Oh yea, they did beat that mighty FB powerhouse Idaho 28 10. SUC is “hardly one of the better teams” in CFB right nw

  • http://www.larrybrownsports.com Larry Brown

    Gilbert and Driver,
    Yes, their schedule has not been impressive so far … and this isn’t something you would expect from a UCLA guy. But it’s not like I was saying they should be a Top 5 team, I’m just saying to not be included in the Top 25 is pretty strange.

  • JS

    Hey, Driver, if you’re going to use terms such as SUC, please try not to completely butcher the English language while doing it.

    You’re embarrassing the other UCLA alums and fans who post here using a little class and dignity.

  • http://www.UCLAradio.com driver

    I was thinking of posting something as an excuse but since you brought it up here it is…I posted this at the radio station and was in a hurry and it was a crappy keyboard where not all of the key strokes took. Since I did not proofread the post was quite messed up. You will notice that my post was filled with missing keys but fairly adequate grammar.