USC is undefeated and finished 2nd in BCS last year. IN the BCS system we deserve to be number 1 with Texas having a lose. I am not saying we are the best team in the country. WE surely ain't. Howevr under BCS system we are where we should be.

leave no doubt..........!!! love those computers....!! sure wish i knew how they worked..or maybe not

That's nice, but really all that matters is wins. Three years ago the computers screw us, and we take solace in the fact that every person with a choice thought we were the best team. Now, every person with a choice thinks we're not so great, but the computers do...

I don't even know how to react to this. Let's just win out and get to the NC game.

Wait just a minute, I though from the blog comments that everything about the program sucks right now???? Bad O, terrible D, awful coaching???

My question to the Carroll and Kiffin bashers is what program is in a better situation right now?Ohio St. - OK, I'll accept that one but who else?

Fla. - anyone really believe they are a great team that will win out? Mich. with a match-up with OSU looming? WVU (beside Wolf)? ND? Aub. with their choke against the Hogs? Cal with the collapse against Tenn.???

If you really see a better program out there, please go jump on that bandwagon immediately and spare everyone your spoiled whining.

Hey, I'm not a "homer" or someone that can't handle criticism of the program but let's keep it in some kind of reasonable perspective.

The BCS laptops could care less about sexy wins, its Just wins baby, scoring margin who cares, however the important stuff like how strong your opponent is, where you had that win and your opponents competition all come into play and this is where the Trojans get recognized. Teams like WV who get rewarded in some polls will get punished for playing schools like Occidental, Radclife and Cal tech

How sweet it is. Computers are unlike humans-- they are actually objective. Based on the input to date SC deserves to be No. 1. Why? They beat a good Arkansas team and a good Nebraska team. And computers don't compute how close the game is-- only humans do that. All that said, SC could not beat Ohio State or Michigan today. But come January, 3-months hence, who knows what magician Carroll will have cooked up with his freshman being the experience equivalent of sophomores. Am I in a minority of Trojan fans in loving this team?

All these rankings mean nothing at this point. USC will lose at least one game to Oregon, Cal and Notre Dame. USC is not going to play for the National Championship and will be lucky to get to the Rose Bowl. Holiday Bowl is most likely destination.

The 2006 team sucks. Cant run. Cant pass. Cant block. Defense is worse than the 2005 squad, if that is even possible. LoJack is the most overrated player in the county. The whole D-line couldnt stop me. The secondary is a mess. Pete has had 5 years to make good on "Cornerback U" and hasnt even come close. And not to mention, these Trojans have gone from "soft" to "delicate".

Maybe the computers are smarter than I thought. I mean, anyone to credit West Virginia the way you do gives rise to the idea that maybe we should leave it to the machines.

None of this matters at this point. There are many areas of improvement that need to be resolved. Beware of what happened to Auburn.
We have to be improve to be ready for Cal, and if we beat them, we have a good chance to get past ND and UCLA.
Then there's Ohio State, playing the best and most balanced football today, but they are not outside our reach.

Huh? What's last year's results got to do with this year rankings considering each team normally has a 25% year-over-year change in personnel? If that were the case, BCS rankings would be published before the first week of the season. College football is not like the world golf rankings.

Just make a playoff since polls are for geeks. "Real Trojan Hoya" I forget to get the memo that you own the handle TrojanHoya. Eh, oh well. You should get a life and worry about something else than an internet handle. Get over it loser.

This is most ridiculous since Oklahoma and LSU were picked for Sugar Bowl.

That Wolfe was given right to develop a computer system to contribute is also sad.

The whole sysetem is rotten. It only works when a clear No. 1 and No. 2 arise like last year. Otherwise the whole system is an example of the Peter Principle.

Let me echo Expo Park: if you're USC and you win all your games, you'll win at least a share of the national title. If you don't, then you're still pissed you lost a game.

So it's nice for the blog, but the only concern this week is Arizona State. The polls will work themselves out.

Not exactly positive but I believe that I recall, the recent year we clobbered Michigan in the Rose Bowl, was the year that we got screwed out of the NC game....primarily by the computer rankings....

Please tell me I'm not hearing people say maybe the computers have it right?

MD is right, and please everyone slow down in hopping on the computer bandwagon, does anyone even remember last year when we dropped down to #2 in the
BCS for a week during the regular season?

Yea, it's nice that we have the boost from the computers, but holy cow, don't start saying the computers know better than the voters. Just be grateful for whoever has us higher.

Right now I say the coach's know what they're voting for and the press is a bunch of flip-flopping wafflers...

Yeah, Scott, both human polls that count have SC at #2, so I guess they are less favorable, but not by much. Strange way to put it, my friend.

Bob

This post is partially directed at eftzoons above:

Predicting that USC will lose a game against one of three teams ranked in the top 20 (two in the top 10) does not make you smart. When everyone looked at the schedule a year ago it was understood that USC's last four games would be the most difficult. Yes, you need to include UCLA.

As a true USC fan one should show faith in a program that has been SECOND to NONE over the past 4 years. I for one remeber being a student at USC in the early to mid 90's when we did not have very good football teams. Not once did I enjoy a win over Notre Dame or UCLA while in school.Pete lost one game to Notre Dame in his first year(away)and has never lost to UCLA, crushing them most of the time.

If USC were to lose a game, or even two, I would never insult the team especially the players who happen to be kids just trying to win some games.

Peace Out!

You just don't like getting called out for being childish, which I can understand. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? But your intent was to satirize my critical comments about Mr. Wolf, using my screenname which I do "own" on other sites, so to speak. That's actually more like intellectual fraud.

I've got plenty on my plate to worry about, but I also don't let these types of things slide by. There are plenty of people who know me by that handle on other sites, and I feel obligated to defend that screenname.

By the way, you've never once mentioned what your typical screenname was before you went on this charade...hmm...

Pick someone else to go after...

One thing the computers do have right is West Virginia. They come in at an average of 12th.

I'm sure Scott will still refuse to see the truth and rank them #1 again next week.

Regardless of whether the computer rankings or the human polls favor USC, there should be no doubt that the computers are more objective than the humans. Most importantly, even though people often scratch their heads about why the computers say what they say, there is always a concrete explanation, whereas the human voters are mostly going on abstract impressions and what bounces around the echo chamber (since the voters, whether they are coaches or writers, are not even watching games other than the ones they are coaching/covering).

What is the concrete explanation for why USC is being well-served by the computers in 2006? Start with the fact that Arkansas and Nebraska are a combined 9-0 against teams other than USC. Washington and Washington State are 8-2 against teams other than the Trojans. A losing Arizona squad is not enough to offset the advantage USC has over other contenders right now in strength of schedule-- USC's opponents are 19-5 against their other opponents. (Note that Ohio State's opponents are 24-6 against their other opponents, but it's likely that the Trojans are edging the Buckeyes based on opponents' strength of schedule.) USC also has three of its wins on the road; compare that to Florida, which has played five of its six games in the Swamp.

Why did USC drop to #2 for one week after winning last year? Well, Texas beat 6-0 Texas Tech on the same day that USC beat 1-5 Washington. Each week a new snapshot is taken. Before those games, both teams were unbeaten, but USC had a schedule-strength edge. After those games, Texas's schedule-strength had surpassed the Trojans, so they switched places. You may not like a system in which a team drops a spot even though it wins, but at least it's transparent. The writers, on the other hand, are basing their rankings largely on conjecture and subjective "feelings" about which team is best.

As far as 2003 is concerned, I was as disappointed as anyone that USC didn't get to play in the BCS championship game, but the facts were that you had three teams, all with roughly equivalent cases to make that they belonged in the game, but only two spots. Just because the system didn't favor us in 2003, that didn't mean the system was broken; and, just because it worked out for us in 2004, to Auburn's exclusion, that didn't validate the system. As long as there can only be two teams in the championship game, someone will always feel like they've been unfairly left out, unless you have a situation like last year, when exactly two teams are clearly separated from all others.

Last thing: previous seasons are irrelevant. Texas gets, and deserves, no head-start this year based on last year, and neither does USC. Everyone starts over from zero.

I would say that the AP poll has been fairly accurate this year. If you were to compare the first preseason poll with the latest one you will see 7 teams still remain in the top 10; Auburn, LSU and Oklahoma being the exceptions.

If you look deeper at 11-25 , which becomes increasingly difficult to predict, 9 teams still remain. So the AP still has 19 teams in the top 25. Those 19 teams are a combined 93 wins, 15 losses.

Pretty good if you ask me.

Enjoy Life!

The difference between this year and 2003 is the formula.

There should never have been a formula that allows you to lose your last game (conference championship) or not to win your conference and still be allowed in the NC game.

The formula was simplified for this year, with a lot of weight given to the human polls.

What would be interesting is an analysis of whether USC can make it into the NC game if they are #3 in the Coaches' poll but #1 in the computer rankings. That's where the trouble would be.

TrojanHoya,

Despite the conventional wisdom, all games should be of equal importance. Voters may give greater weight to a late-season loss than an earlier one, but a loss is a loss. When determining who gets the precious BCS bids, you have to look at the season as a whole. To borrow an example from baseball, no one had a better record than the Angels after July 1, and the Tigers lost 31 of their last 50 games, but the Tigers still got to go to the playoffs because you don't lose credit for the games you have already won. When they say that games in September (in baseball) are more important than games in April, it's just not true. Every game counts equally. Every win you pick up in April and May is one you won't need to get in October. Granted, it's not a perfect analogy since baseball has objective standings and college football has subjective rankings, but the principle is the same.

An absolute rule such as you suggest would be unfair. Here's an example of how a rule stating that a team that doesn't win its conference championship is excluded from BCS championship game consideration would be unfair. Let's say a team from a conference with a conference title game (let's say Oklahoma) runs the table in the regular season, both in and out of conference. Heading into the Big XII title game, they are the only undefeated team in the country. There are also two one-loss teams from conferences with no conference title game (let's say USC and Michigan). Now let's say that each of the one-loss teams suffered its sole defeat at the hands of Oklahoma. Oklahoma then loses the Big XII title game to a non-contender, leaving us with three one-loss teams. Under your proposed rule, Oklahoma would be left out because it failed to win the Big XII title. However, it would only be because Oklahoma would have had to play an extra game that USC and Michigan didn't have to play. Most importantly, Oklahoma would have beaten both USC and Michigan head-to-head. Under those circumstances, how could you reasonably leave Oklahoma out of the national championship game? They would have clearly had the strongest season, assuming a quality conference schedule, and they would have beaten both of the other candidates.

For the record, the BCS formula was changed to give added weight to the human polls last year, after Auburn was left out the prior year. If anything, they should have deemphasized the human polls. As already discussed, the human voters are mostly guessing. How many games does the typical voting coach see on a given Saturday? One-- the one he's coaching. How many games does the average voting writer see on Saturday? One-- the one he's covering. Just look at Mr. Wolf's AP ballots for proof of how confused the voters can be. At least the computers are dispassionate and give every team a fair shake.

I disagree with you Brian, that de-emphasizing the polls is the smart move. Humans are able to 'factor in' such things as the importance of margin of victory vs. a ranked team vs. an unranked team, a close win on the road vs. a close win at home, weather, key injuries, etc. A blind computer algorithm that does not take these variables into account will be skewed, and not for the better.

Right now, I'd say the polls are closer to reality than the computers - I'd put USC at #3 too. And for those hoping for a playoff system some day, like me, the polls/computers controversy will simply shift to the earlier argument over who the top 8 or 16 teams invited should be. The #9 or #17 team left out will be upset, but the top teams will then play for a more 'real' NC title.

And as for how many games they get to see, they have ESPN highlights (like we all do) + a team of people gathering info for them (conference video feeds, beat radio/newspaper guys, website recaps, phone calls to buddies, etc.) before they have to turn in their ballots. Now the quality of that research may degrade past the top 10 or so, but I bet they know pretty well what's up with those top teams.

If we don't go undefeated or 1-loss at worst, the polls/BCS won't matter anyway. Good thing we get all those tough ones at home this year.

That's just my $.02.....

To Brian:

Hello!!!!

Because a conference championship game is a playoff game. In your scenario, Oklahoma lost its conference championship so it would not deserve to advance (like a playoff game). USC and Michigan don't have a conf championship, but lets say they're one loss is a conf game and they don't win their conference......then they wouldn't advance either.

It is absurd to think that you can lose your conference yet be eligible for a National Championship. 2003 should have been LSU and USC.

What they ought to do is have an 8 team playoff with automatic bids to the conf champion of the Big 6 BCS conferences, and two at large bids to the next two highest rated teams.

Some very good comments from Brian. Some notes.

While some of the polls do ultimately eliminate consideration of the previous year (such as Sagarin), some seem to start from last year's results. For example Billingsley assigns initial points based on last year's Billingsley finish, and then adds or subtracts points based on the rating of each week's opponent. So even the end of the year Billingsley result is based, in part, on the previous year.

Also some of the computers ignore whether games are played at home or away, and some ignore Division 1-AA games (which means that, for that poll, Colorado's loss to Montana St. was a non-event).

Computers are also blind to injuries. Let's say Brady Quinn can't play against SC, but otherwise led ND to a 10-1 record going into that game. The computers would not note at all that SC was playing a weakened team.

Finally, don't forget that computers are blind to margin of victory. I know margins of victory are politically incorrect, but they are an important measure of team strength. Ohio State is a near unanimous No. 1 in the human polls because of two impressive road victories against Texas and Iowa. The computers view these as just victories.

That is why, all in all, I don't mind the computers being part of the process, but you cannot think of them as simply "objective" evaluators. The rule is GIGO, and, to me, analyzing oollege football teams without considering actual scores is [G]arbage.

FYI - The Big Ten does have a Conference Championship Game...it is called the winner of the Michigan/Ohio State Game (they have won or shared the Big Ten Title 31 out of the last 38 years).