USC landed about where most expected in the first BCS standings of 2008 - at No. 5.
Three of the teams ahead of the Trojans are undefeated (Texas, Alabama and Penn State, in that order), and the other (Oklahoma) suffered its lone defeat against the top-ranked team in a close game.
But the evaluation of USC’s résumé by the six computer systems that comprise one-third of the BCS formula produced a bit of head scratching and eyebrow raising around Heritage Hall.
The computer rankings have USC 10th - five spots lower than Ohio State, which lost at the Coliseum, 35-3, on Sept. 13.
“How does that happen?” USC coach Pete Carroll said Sunday, when the standings were released. “Nice system.”
When asked whether USC’s 10th-place position in the computer rankings concerned him, Carroll said: “What would I be concerned about? Do you think I’m holding my breath over winning the national championship because of the BCS? We have no control over that thing.”
Carroll did not express rage against the machines so much as bewilderment.
“I don’t even know how it works,” he said. “It’s a computer. We’re talking about it like it’s a person.
“It’s a machine, dude. I know nothing.”
USC also ranked below non-BCS teams Utah (No. 8 ) and Boise State (No. 9) in the computer portion of the rankings.
The USA Today Coaches’ Poll and Harris Interactive Poll count for two-thirds of the final BCS computation. USC held serve in both polls, ranking fourth and fifth, respectively, after wiping out Washington State, 69-0, for its third consecutive victory and second consecutive shutout.
The other teams that are behind the Trojans in the polls but ahead of them in the computer rankings are Oklahoma State (No. 3) and Georgia (No. 6).
Even after the standings came out, Carroll maintained his indifference toward them.
“It doesn’t factor in,” he said. “It means nothing to how we play or how we practice.”
On Monday, USC begins its preparation for Saturday’s game at Arizona, which upset Cal last week but failed - along with the rest of the Pac-10 - to crack the BCS’ top 25.
Related links:
- USC No. 5 in first BCS standings
- McKnight ‘pretty close’ to returning
- Praise for Nick Howell (and others)
- Lev column: How the Pac-10 hurts USC
The BCS computers are not only an inaccurate form of judging the ranking of a team, it is obviously without control, prone to error, and agenda driven.
How can I say the aforementioned things about the BCS computers - simple. In fact, it is so simple it is also proof to what I have said.
- The computers, have no control or accuracey. Proof: If they did, there would not be an “average computer ranking - only one would be needed. If they had any standards, why would they differ?
- The computers are very much agenda driven. Proof: The New York TIMES’ computer reflects their editorial remarks on the various college teams they write about. The computer in Los Angeles, is controlled by a man that refuses to place USC #1 at any time and has a clear reputation of disliking the USC football program. This should be no surprise to anyone in Los Angeles, therefore his name need not be mentioned. I mention USC as clear proof that the different computers do have individuals who have agendas against and for teams.
- The computers are prone to error or the people that create the rankings flat-out lie. Proof: How could anyone in their right mind place Ohio State at #5 and USC at #10? That is plain goofy. USC would be heavily favored in a rematch and the computer people know it - or they are dumber than I think they are.
When you analyze the BCS system, there is a favoritism to a school that is highly ranked in the beginning of the season.
The reason is the computer formula.
The computer formula tilts the analysis in favor of schools that are playing other highly ranked schools. So, a conference like the SEC is OVER represented in the calculation because more SEC schools are ranked in the Top 10 than PAC-10 schools.
Therefore, an early season loss in the PAC-10 does more damage than an early season loss in the SEC.
Hence, GA ranking higher than USC in the first BCS run.
One loss by TX in the Big-12 will knock them down. But, they play more cupcakes than SEC.
So, don’t look for TX to remain in the BCS hunt if they lose 1.
USC will not recover it’s position if it loses another to a PAC-10 school.
SEC teams can recover from a 1 loss season because the SEC automatically (by formula) gets a higher ranking because of the pre-season tilt in favor of SEC schools.
BIg Ten schools like Ohio State also play in a conference with more Top 10 rankings than the PAC TEN. So, hence, OhSU gets position.
That’s how you end up with a great team like the 2006-7 undefeated Boise State team being PREVENTED from playing for the National Championship… WAC gets dissed in the binary vision of the BCS computer.
There are a lot of misconceptions about the computers being thrown about… for one thing, USC is about 2 wins behind those other teams due to a number of byes on the schedule, and most of the computer algorithms will take number of wins into account. That will even out as the season play out. For another thing, they don’t use the human polls as an input, so the concept that being highly ranked to start the season having any benefit is laughable.
For another thing, and Pete - maybe you should consider this part especially - DON’T LOSE TO OREGON STATE! How tough is that to figure out? Florida has a similarly poor loss and they are ALSO dragging in the computer rankings.
There’s still a lot of football to be played, so there’s no point in getting worked up yet. USC can’t afford to stumble in any way in order to maintain any hope of a BCS championship berth. That might not even be enough due to a putrid Pac 10 this year and a really ugly loss.
An interesting point to consider would be the state of Oregon State football if they played a typical Big 12 OOC schedule (like, say, Texas Tech). They’d likely be 6-1 with only a loss to Stanford and we wouldn’t be hearing about how bad a loss USC sustained. No other BCS team travelled TO Penn State and TO Utah for OOC games.
I’m sure we all agree here the only thing that can solve this headache with incompetent sports writers (Scott Wolf) and computers deciding rankings is to come up with a playoff system. USC has clearly established itself as one of the toughest teams to play at the end of the year and a playoff would be the best system for all of college football. Wouldn’t it be great to see another Boise St. - Oklahoma matchup again in a playoff game?