Here's my current wishful thinking guesswork. My hopeful assumptions: Texas loses one of the next three games, but still plays Missouri for the Big 12 and wins. Pitt wins the Big East. Virginia Tech wins the ACC. USC wins the Pac-10. Georgia beats Alabama in a rematch in the SEC title game. Ohio State beats Penn State for the Big Ten title. Utah and BYU both lose (to BYU and TCU). Boise State does not lose. The automatic bids go only to the BCS conference champions and Boise State. If so, the bowls might look like this:
- BCS Championship: USC v. Texas
- Rose Bowl: Alabama v. Penn State
- Fiesta Bowl: Missouri v. Ohio State
- Sugar Bowl: Georgia v. Pitt
- Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Boise State
A more likely projection, based upon current rankings, standing and odds:
- BCS Championship: Texas v. Alabama
- Rose Bowl: USC v. Penn State
- Fiesta Bowl: Oklahoma v. Ohio State
- Sugar Bowl: Florida v. South Florida
- Orange Bowl: Virginia Tech v. Boise State
This would assume that the highest ranking teams keep winning. Texas would take the Big XII, over Missouri or Kansas, but Oklahoma would be higher than the North champion in the BCS, so Texas would go to the championship game and the Fiesta Bowl would pick Oklahoma over Missouri or Kansas. On the other hand, Missouri fans would probably be more eager to travel, and the Tigers got jobbed last year, so maybe Oklahoma goes from #1 to out of the BCS with just its loss to Texas. If Oklahoma keeps winning, however, it will finish in the top four and will be the only other eligible Big 12 team in the BCS. Alabama would take the SEC over Florida, earning a spot in the championship, and leaving the Sugar Bowl to take Florida. The Rose Bowl would be the Pac-10 v Big Ten again. Virginia Tech as ACC champ would be in the Orange Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would pick first, from among: BYU (automatic), South Florida (Big East) or an Ohio State team ranked higher than any other eligible at-large team, since no other Big 12 or SEC team can be picked.
Everything could change on Saturday.
Sam-E, every time USC loses, people will consider it a big game. Every game USC plays, people consider a big game. USC gets everyone's best shot, and every time they lose, it is to a team that is considered inferior, because USC is favored every time, whether they are playing a good team or a bad team. In big games against top ten teams or BCS conference champions or BCS bowl games, USC has lost exactly one since 2002. They've won them against Notre Dame, Iowa, Auburn, Washington State, Michigan, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, UCLA, Notre Dame, Michigan, Illinois and Ohio State. That's 12 wins and 1 loss since 2001. Against the top ten or other conference champs. Five BCS bowl victories against 1 loss. Yet you would mock them for suffering six upsets in seven seasons? Which team do you think has done better?
Posted by: lex icon | October 18, 2008 at 00:54
copycat...
that was a terrible rebuttal.
Posted by: Nathan Frizzell | October 17, 2008 at 18:53
hey the person who is my copycat,
you talk as if ohio state lost by 1. ohio state was never in that game. i hate to be comparig losses but just because you lose to a great team by 32, doesnt mean its not worse than a loss by 1 to a halfway decent team. and the thing that florida has over ohio state is a win over a top 10 ranked opponent, and they also blew out miami arkansas, tennesee, and hawaii. not only does ohio state not have a win over somebody that is currently ranked, they struggled against ohio, minnesota and purdue. so florida being ranked ahead of ohio state isnt bias, voters are just ranking them accordingly to their body of work.
ill admit this, usc is a fun team to watch and voters know they bring in great ratings. just like baseball, who would you vote to see in a playoff game....red sox and yankees, or royals and mariners? and thats the bias usc has, its an unfair one. we'll take a look at the computer rankings when they come out soon and we all know those things are supposed to be unbiased so well see if usc is rightfully ranked in the top 6.
Posted by: gibberoon | October 17, 2008 at 18:24
Dear Christian:
Do you think Texas and Oregon State would agree with you? What about that UCLA game a couple of years ago? Or maybe Stanford and Oregon last year? So the biggest game was Texas, and Texas won. And then UCLA and UCLA won. Stanford, Oregon and Oregon State aren't big games. SC lost them anyway. Bummer.
Posted by: Sam-E | October 17, 2008 at 17:13
first of all if usc wins out and if there is a one loss big 12 and 1 loss sec and they are both champions of their respective conferences, they are both going to have dropped below usc in the polls as they should be and the polls will control. the one loss sec team will be most likely to play usc ahead of the big xii team even though the big xii schedule is tougher in that there is no denying the bias that these voters have toward the sec so i dont want any ignorant idiotic sec fans saying that there isnt. ohio state who i hate and lost to the currently ranked #4 team, is ranked 4 to 7 spots below a florida team that lost at home to a horrible team in ole miss who is far weaker than oregon state. we saw nothing like this last year as michigan lost to an app state that lost two games in fcs play, and got rightfully got kicked out of the top 10 but still went on to beat florida in a new years day bowl. but when usc loses to a team, because it is on the road to a team that is 3-3 with a tough schedule that included 3 teams in the top 15, they dont even get kicked out of the top 10 because voters watch the games and realize that crazy shit happens sometimes in conference road games. just as byu. i just dont know why you idiot florida fans cant admit that your conference is overrated and that there is a bias that voters have toward you. i mean what's so wrong with admitting that? the fact that you play a cupcake nonconference schedule and that your conference is now down to only four teams that dont suck and it might be as few as three teams that dont suck and that voters like you is a benefit to you; so why is it so wrong that you let us know that you know it?
Posted by: Gibberoon's copycat | October 17, 2008 at 16:47
What you call bias, I call being right. There is an appearance to rate USC highly because every year USC proves themselves to be almost impossible to beat in the biggest games.
Posted by: Christian | October 17, 2008 at 15:23
first of all if there is a one loss big 12 and 1 loss sec and they are both champions of their respective conferences, they are both going to get in over usc as they should be. there is no denying the bias that these voters have toward usc so i dont want any ignorant idiotic usc fans saying that there isnt. georgia who i hate and lost to the currently ranked #2 team, is ranked 4 spots below a usc team that lost to a horrible team in oregon state. we saw it last year as michigan lost to a good app state and got kicked out of the top 10. but when usc loses to a team, who is much worse than app state, and they dont even get kicked out of the top 10. pat forde and eddie george both said it themselves that it was uncomprehendable and unfair to michigan that the voters would do that.
i just dont know why you idiot usc fans cant admit that your conference is horrible and that there is a bias that voters have toward you. i mean what's so wrong with admitting that? the fact that you play a cupcake schedule and that voters like you is a benefit to you; so why is it so wrong that you let us know that you know it?
Posted by: gibberoon | October 17, 2008 at 10:28
This is too damn confusing for me. If USC and Texas meet for the Natl Championship, who cares about the rest of the silly games? We need a PLAYOFF SYSTEM. I'm gonna have a stroke over this some day.
Posted by: Cranky Greg | October 16, 2008 at 22:48