Just thought I would throw a quick post up on the BCS.
We all know the system is screwed up but there is still a lot of football to be played so I am not yet getting all worked up over it.
I do agree with Pete Carroll on the one comment he made...(emphasis mine)
Despite moving up to No. 4 in the polls Sunday, USC ranked only 11th in the computer component that is part of the formula for determining the BCS standings.
That left the Trojans at No. 7 in the first standings.
"It's a huge discrepancy," Carroll said. "I would think that gives you a lot of reason to question the end result. Is the goal to find the team with the best record or the best team?"
I see where PC is going.
The further back in the pack you are the harder it is for you to make up ground. Auburn in 2004 showed us that.
I think this more about teams like Boise St. than anything else...they aren't even in a BCS conference. Their SoS is suspect. I also think it has to with how the computer rank teams with the schedules they play. I still think that a win over a great FCS team should not have as much importance placed on it as a win over bottom feeder FBS team. Playing D-1 schools matters no matter how bad they are...sooner or later it forces you to go out on the road.
But I also think it is way too early to even discuss it because there is just too much football left to be played.
Anyway here are a few other articles on the subject...