Replies

I'm not particularly a college football fanatic but it seemed odd to me that any team with a late season loss was considered for a number #1 ranking.

The logic of the BCS software escapes me if tinkering to promote an agenda is excluded.

...The logic of the BCS software escapes me if tinkering to promote an agenda is excluded....

If you were a fan of college football, you would know that the BCS is a composite of a number of rankings which include the one done by the idiotic, corrupt AP writers. The system was negotiated by all interests and agreed to in advance. It was executed as described by their rules and a winner select. Hint, it was not USC.

The corrupt writers don't like that their "opinion" is not the only case and they insisted that their measurement be advanced above the one that everyone (including them) agreed to.

The fans of some teams want their team to be perceived as the best and so they act like the AP is correct.

That is the same AP that we routinely lambast for bias and incompetence. But, in this, suddenly, they are perfect.

Oh, it is in the BCS's interest to have picked USC which they couldn't because they don't have the ability to change the rules after the fact.

Further, although our friends from the PAC 10 think that their teams are great because they score a lot of points, football is truly great when it is played with two teams focusing on defense. As was displayed in the Sugar Bowl this evening.

(I say this as a fan and student of the game who supports none of the teams as a booster.)