Arkansas at 15? LOL

they beat up on Auburn at Auburn. Granted, they have a couple of tough games ahead. But as of now, they deserve to be ranked higher than 15.

I'm confused. Where are Miami and Florida State?

Lol!!!!!!!!!!! WV ahead of USC based on what!! Rolling all over the floor laughing!!!!!

Scott, glad you got with the program and dropped the folks from Morgnhole down to #7. That's not too far off where they would be on my ballot.

I think after Stanford, USC should be #2. Michigan sucks.

TARD

You still are supporting WVU, they are not that good.. sheesh

There's no way Notre Dame is better than USC and West Virginia doesn't deserve to be ranked ahead of the Trojans. Thank goodness there's still lot's of season left to play.

why isn't Louisville #1 you pathetic fraud?

So much for your theory of West Virigina being number one.

It's really hard to stomach seeing a USC fan put Notre Dame ahead of USC.....

haha, you still have west virginia ranked in the top 10?? nice job...

You mean West Virginia isn't your #1 again? Say it ain't so, Scottie.

Those rankings seem pretty accurate. I do think West Virginia would lose on a neutral field to all the teams you have 8-12, but since you had them #1 I can see why you wouldn't drop them too much. All the 1 loss teams, Florida, Auburn, SC, Texas, Cal, ND, are all so flawed and have played some real bad games that they are tough to separate. Michigan too, they've just haven't lost, yet.

Shouldn't Louisville be your new #1 pick?

Interesting that 3-loss Clemson is on the ballot but Maryland, with two losses (one to West Virginia) and which just beat Clemson, is not.

USC, Arkansas and Auburn all have the same record (one loss each).This is such a no-brainer...
Arkansas thrashed Auburn at Auburn. USC destroyed Arkansas at Arkansas.
Accordingly, Wolf's ballet SHOULD have read...
#5 USC. #9 Arkansas. #15 Auburn.

In 1978, USC and Alabama each finished the season with one loss apiece and split the National Championship. USC won the UPI and Alabama the AP version. So you say to yourself, "Wouldn't it be great if they could have played each other, and settled it on the field?" Well, THEY DID! And USC won convincingly at Alabama! Yet some BOZO used his AP BALLOT to vote Alabama #1. Sound familiar?

Scott, were you an AP voter in 1978? I bet you own a big red rubber nose and size 20 floppy shoes, HUH?

Scott, please stick to covering the Trojans and giving us insights on the pulse of the team. Please forfeit your voting privileges for the greater good of college football.

That's funny how you guys rip on him about Florida st. and Miami :o))

So Scott, what's with all of the love you are showing to West Virginia?

After what WV and Louisville showed the nation last week, everyone now knows neither team is worthy of a top ten ranking. Yes, WV can run the ball and yes, Louisville can pass the ball, but neither team has a defense worth talking about and in the major conferences across the country both teams would be coming in at 5th place at best.

Top Five: 1)Ohio State, 2)Michigan, 3)Texas, 4)Florida, 5)Trojans

Also, the winner of the Louisville/Rutgers game should get to play Bosie State on December 31 on the blue carpet in Idaho.......this would be fitting for all.

Looks like my imposter friend is back. Hey, I almost missed your stalking...but was encouraged that you might have gotten psychiatric counseling for your little "problem".

Thanks for thinking of me!

I'm surprised you don't have UCLA ranked.

FACTS:

Louisville has more non-conference wins against BCS teams (3: 5-4 Kentucky, 5-4 Miami and 6-4 Kansas State) than Auburn, Florida and Tennessee COMBINED (2: Auburn beat 6-4 Wash. St.; Tennessee beat 8-1 Cal).

Louisville has more non-conference road wins (3) than Auburn, Florida and Tennessee combined (1, by Tennessee at 1-8 Memphis). Louisville has won at Temple (all right, that one doesn't really count), at Kansas State and at Middle Tennessee (before you laugh, MTSU is 6-3 and alone in first place in the Sun Belt, so they're not exactly a tomato can, certainly better than 1-8 Memphis).

Would Auburn ever go on the road and play a team like Middle Tennessee? Or even Kansas State? Should Auburn be rewarded for having exactly ZERO non-conference road games this year? They play eight of their twelve games at home, and their exclusively home non-conference schedule includes Buffalo, Tulane and Arkansas State.

Tonycal asserts that Louisville would finish no better than 5th in a "major conference" (even though the Big East is rated the second-toughest conference by objective measures like the Sagarin ratings), yet Louisville is 3-0 against teams with winning records from the other BCS conferences. Louisville's overall schedule strength ranks 42nd. Not impressed? Would you be surprised to know that Texas is 47th? That Auburn is 39th? That Arkansas is 96th, even with USC? 96th!!! Even Ohio State's schedule is only 31st, which works out to about 1.7% tougher than Louisville's.

The game Thursday night was not all that dissimilar to last year's Rose Bowl, but perception is everything. When Louisville and West Virginia combine for 81 points and over 1,000 yards, people who are looking for a reason to discount the teams say they can't play defense. When USC and Texas combined for 79 points and over 1,000 yards, it was deemed one of the greatest games ever and the winner was anointed one of the greatest teams ever.

If Louisville goes 12-0, there is no viable argument that they wouldn't belong in the championship game. They would likely have nine wins against bowl teams. Will there be any other team that would be able to say that?

The Big East is the second-ranked conference. The Big East is 32-8 against other conferences and 11-7 against the other BCS conferences, including 2-0 against the SEC. There is not a single conference that has a winning record against the Big East (the Big Ten and Big XII are .500, and the Pac-10 has not played the Big East).

I SHOW THAT WE ARE #7 NOT #9. WHAT'S UP?

if WV was your #1 last week and louisville beat 'em convincingly, shouldn't louisville move up to at least 3rd?
note on texas: yes, they are undefeated in their confrence(the very weak big 12), but their 3 non-conference wins came against north texas, rice, and sam houston. how do those wins even remotely compare to SC's non-conference wins against arkansas and nebraska?
that doesn't add up to #3 in my mind.

Yo Brian, it looks like you have way to much time on your hands to be able to come up with all of that info..........I like making comments that gets someone riled up, kinda like what Scott likes to do.

Brian, no one at SC is ever going to argue for the SEC so you are barking up the wrong tree here. You'll get some Hog fans only because SC beat em, the rest, SC fans rip on a daily basis about their non con schedules.. you need to find an SEC board to rip on

Brian,

Nice diatribe about why Louisville deserves to be ranked ahead of the SEC teams--quite convincing. But noticably absent was any discussion of USC.

You state that the big east is the second highest rated conference? Who is the Highest rated conference by the Sagarin rankings? Pac-10?

You also went on about strength of schedule. How is USC's strenth of schedule? How's Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame for a non-conference schedule? Better than Louisville's? And yes, USC is more than willing to go on the road with home and home deals.

Now, if Loisville wins out, I do think they deserve to go to the national championship. But enough with the righteous indignation--like you're some kind of victim. Don't worry, they're getting their due opportunities.

Oh, and by the way, you compared West Virginia vs Loisville with Texas vs USC national championship. Dude, seriously, there was no one playing college football last Thursday night that is comparable to Leinart, Bush, or Young. Sorry, it really was just bad defense.

I gotta admit that's way too low for USC...I mean, we did beat Arkansas and Nebraska....It's like, next week he won't even have them in the Top 25...They will be playing in the Rose Bowl vs. Michigan and Scott won't even have them ranked..

Brian,

With the exception of one another, can you tell me how many Top 15 BCS teams Louisville or West Virginia have beaten or have played? I can...ZERO.

Can you tell me which SEC teams the Big East teams have beaten (2-0)? Were they Auburn, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Arkansas, or South Carolina?...NOPE.

Can you tell me which Big Ten or Pac Ten teams West Virginia or Louisville have beaten? I can...ZERO.

Last I checked Middle Tenn. State, Temple, East Carolina, and Eastern Washington were not BCS conference teams. So way to schedule strong non-conference games to counter for Big East powers like South Florida, Connecticut, and Cincinnati.

FYI - When the national media (except for Wolfie) tell you that your conference is weaker than the likes of the SEC, Big Ten or Big Twelve, don’t schedule Middle Tenn. State, Temple, East Carolina, and Eastern Washington because you already play teams like that in your own conference (see above). Get some cajones like USC did under Carol and go schedule non-conference games against Virginia Tech, Auburn, Nebraska, Arkansas, Notre Dame, and Ohio State (2008). If they won’t come to you, go on the road to them. That’s how you get national respect. And then, if you win, you can write an essay about how good the Big East is.

Scott I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so!

West Virginia is "good" football team in a bad conference, and would never stand up to the punishment of playing in the Big 10, Pac 10 or SEC.

Once again ND proved that it is not a legitimate top 10 team. If Air Force gives them a close game, and I think they will, you must drop them out of the top 10.

Oh, and in an earlier post I had predicted that Texas would lose to Nebraska. It did not happen, but it looks as if Nebraska may get another shot in the conference Championship game, and Texas will not be so lucky the second time around.

Here is my top 10; 1.Ohio State 2.Florida 3.Michigan 4.Louisville 5.Cal 6.USC 7.Texas 8.Arkansas 9.LSU 10.West Virginia

Has anyone looked at Ohio States schedule. Other than Texas they have played some extremely weak teams. Even the Big Ten teams that they have played this year have not been playing like they normally do, and they didn't have to play Wisconsin this year so I think the November 18 game may be more interesting than people think.

And I totally agree about Arkansas, and Auburn.

Trojanhorse: I was barking up tonycal's tree.

Brad: Sagarin has the Pac-10 #1, followed by the Big East, SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Big XII.

As for USC's strength of schedule, it is excellent. It was #1 before playing Stanford, #5 at this moment, and likely to end up #1 after the Trojans' upcoming gauntlet. USC's schedule is far superior to Louisville's. The next-toughest among BCS title-game contenders is Florida at #15. (Note that Cal is #3.)

As for my opinion, a 12-0 Louisville would deserve a spot in the title game over any one-loss team, for reasons already stated. If Louisville loses, and the competition is among one-loss teams, an 11-1 USC will clearly have the strongest argument for a spot in the title game. No other team in the mix will even approach the Trojans' strength of schedule.

Lastly, I agree that there was more overall talent on the field in the Rose Bowl than on Thursday night, but I was making more of a rhetorical point than a literal one. Having said that, I think Steve Slaton, Brian Brohm and maybe Pat White are outstanding players.

JJH4USC: First of all, I do not represent the Big East. It is not "my" conference. I am a USC fan and a USC alumnus, but I try to be objective.

Now, did you even read my post? You cite Louisville's games against Temple and Middle Tennessee-- both on the road, incidentally-- but ignore their non-conference wins over Kentucky and Miami and at Kansas State. All are winning teams from BCS conferences. That is how Louisville would "offset" its Big East schedule, if need be.

But the whole point is that the Big East is not weak. The perception is not reality. You single out three of the bottom four teams in the conference-- two of which will likely end up in bowl games-- but ignore the fact that Louisville must face West Virginia, Rutgers, and Pittsburgh in the conference. All are legitimate teams that you have probably never seen play, with the possible exception of Thursday night. I could take your comment and say the same thing about the SEC teams, asking how they counter their tough games against Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt.

If Louisville beats Rutgers, it will be 2-0 against the BCS top 15. That is the same record Ohio State will have against the BCS top 15 if it beats Michigan.

As for cojones, no one's arguing about USC. No one challenges itself out of conference like USC. How can you impugn Louisville's cojones when the comparison is with a team like Auburn, which won't go on the road to play ANYONE out of conference? At least Louisville shows some guts by traveling to Kansas State and, yes, to Middle Tennessee, and by scheduling Miami (whom they visited in 2005) and Kentucky. This is not Boise State's schedule. It is comparable to Texas, as I already pointed out. Simply put, there is no objective reason why Louisville should be dismissed by as many people as they are.

Don't you think Louisville would jump at the chance to play one of the top SEC teams if they got it? Even if it was on the road? However, the top SEC teams won't play a team like Louisville, because it might expose their conference as weaker than the conventional wisdom holds.

Having said all that, let me clarify one thing. I am arguing about Louisville's place in the title game IF they get to 12-0. Louisville very well may lose and render the whole argument moot. I am not arguing that Louisville is the best team or even the second-best team. As I have posted here before, the notion of "best" is pretty nebulous. All we can evaluate is the objective results on the field. If Louisville gets to 12-0, they will clearly have accomplished enough on the field to have earned a crack at the title.

Good post Brian. We in the Pac Ten are used to being bagged on as a "weak" conference so we know the feeling. Mostly good facts to back up your assertions. I think the Big East is a lot better conference then being given credit.

USC has some open dates in 2010 and 2011. There is a good chance we will be headed to Louisville or Morgantown for those games. (Personally, I would prefer Louisville, the Mountaineer fans just have a dreadful reputation).

Fight On!

Last night, I posted a remark here comparing Thursday night's Louisville-WVU game to the Rose Bowl. Today, I read the following in an article posted on espn.com:

"So Louisville's 44-34 victory over then-No. 3 West Virginia was too high-scoring for the Big East detractors. Too many points (78). Too many yards (1,008). Not enough defense.

Bobby Petrino's Louisville team is third in the polls, but is criticized for its schedule and defense. How easily we forget the final score of last season's Rose Bowl, in which No. 2 Texas upset No. 1 USC 41-38 to win the national championship. The Longhorns and Trojans combined for more points (79) and yards (1,130) than the Mountaineers and Cardinals did last week.

But because Texas and USC aren't from the much-maligned Big East, the Rose Bowl was considered an instant classic."

The author of the espn.com column is Mark Schlabach. I posted his column here last week, with full attribution. Has he now turned the tables by stealing my material from the Scott Wolf blog?

Brian,

I think you just compared a Big East win over Rutgers to a Big Ten win over a #2 Michigan team so I could stop there...but I won't.

My bad. I apologize for intentionally leaving out wins by Louisville over Top 25 teams like 5-4 Kentucky, 5-4 Miami, and 6-4 Kansas State.

Brian, the point is a team like Ohio State played a non-conference game at #2 Texas, even though they still had to play a team like #2 Michigan in conference. And if you are a USC alum, you would know that Auburn HAD the cajones to schedule USC in 2002 and 2003. And if you are the Big East fan that you appear to be, you would know that Auburn HAS scheduled West Virginia for 2008 and 2009. So I wouldn't knock Auburn's cajones too much. Even if Auburn's non-conference is weak this year, they still play in the SEC.

Lets take your Big East 1 through 8 against the SEC 1 through 8.

1. Louisville v. Florida
2. Rutgers v. Arkansas
3. West Virginia v. Auburn
4. Pitt v. Tennessee
5. South Florida v. LSU
6. Cincinnati v. Kentucky
7. Connecticut v. Georgia
8. Syracuse v. South Carolina

Brian get over it. Big East sucks no matter what you, Scott or your computer poll think.

JJH,

"Big East sucks no matter what you, Scott or your computer poll think."

Statements like that reflect the problem. You're effectively saying, "I don't care what objective evidence you present to me. My perception is that the league is bad, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it."

Now, as to your specific points:

"I think you just compared a Big East win over Rutgers to a Big Ten win over a #2 Michigan team..."

I was using your criteria. You asked about the teams' records against the BCS top 15. Rutgers is in the BCS top 15. As for the rhetoric of "Big East win" versus "Big Ten win," that just reflects your lack of objectivity. The Big East is better than the Big Ten this year.

"My bad. I apologize for intentionally leaving out wins by Louisville over Top 25 teams like 5-4 Kentucky, 5-4 Miami, and 6-4 Kansas State."

Apology accepted. :) The point is that you were cherry-picking games from their schedule and ignoring their best non-conference wins. And an opponent doesn't have to be in the Top 25 to be a quality opponent. Kentucky is a winning team from the mighty SEC, Miami WAS #17 when they played Louisville, and Kansas State is a winning team from a BCS conference, and the game was on the road. You can't say that Louisville is shying away from tough opponents. They are not staying home and playing Buffalo. They're playing the opponents they can get. As I said, I'd bet the Cardinals would jump at the chance to play Auburn.

"And if you are a USC alum, you would know that Auburn HAD the cajones [sic] to schedule USC in 2002 and 2003. And if you are the Big East fan that you appear to be, you would know that Auburn HAS scheduled West Virginia for 2008 and 2009. So I wouldn't knock Auburn's cajones too much. Even if Auburn's non-conference is weak this year, they still play in the SEC."

I remember our games against Auburn well. But remember that they came here in 2002, and they visit WVU in 2009. So, Auburn goes seven years between playing a quality non-conference opponent on the road? Why am I not impressed? Yet, if they end up with one loss and USC has one loss, Tommy Tuberville will somehow argue with a straight face that Auburn belongs in the championship game.

Indeed, I am an alum. I am not a "fan" of the Big East. Believe me, I hope Louisville loses, whether it's to Rutgers or someone else, because that would leave one fewer team standing in the way of USC's path to the BCS title game. Anyway, my arguments are not as a fan. I am trying to be objective.

As for your 1-through-8 matchups, I know that in your mind, it seems lopsided, but almost every one of those matchups could go either way on a neutral field, with the possible exceptions of LSU-USF and Syr-SC. Take Arkansas, the second-best team in "your" SEC. Other than a great road win at Auburn, what have they done? They were annihilated by USC at home, and they squeaked by Alabama, who doesn't even make your list of the top eight in the SEC, by one point at home. Other than that, they have wins against Utah State, Vanderbilt, SE Mo. St., La. Monroe, Ole Miss and South Carolina. Actually, I'm selling South Carolina short. That's a quality win on the road, about on par with Louisville's win at Kansas State. Your comparison also leaves out the bottom four in the SEC because there are only eight teams in the Big East, which drag the league down.

Let me make one last thing clear. I am not arguing that the Big East is superior to the SEC. I am arguing that the Big East is good enough to justify Louisville's inclusion in the title game if it is one of two 12-0 teams from a BCS conference. When you take their quality non-conference opponents into account, Louisville's schedule is better than Texas's and about as good as Auburn's. If they go unbeaten, they will not have taken the Boise State path to the achievement. Whether they would win the SEC or another conference is irrelevant to the discussion.

Brian,

In the end who cares who is better the Big East or SEC...I am a Pac 10/Big Ten guy who hates the SEC but happens to think (along with the majority of college football fans) that Auburn, Florida, and possibly Arkansas, Tennessee or even LSU could win and/or go undefeated in the Big East against the likes of Rutgers, Louisville, West Virginia and Pitt (notice how I included the top 4 teams and not the cellar dwellers) while Rutgers, Louisville, West Virginia and Pitt could not reach the SEC Championship Game.

The big difference between us, is that your previous postings indicate that you believe that a 12-0 Louisville team is more deserving to go to the National Championship Game over an 11-1 USC team.

"I am arguing that the Big East is good enough to justify Louisville's inclusion in the title game if it is one of two 12-0 teams from a BCS conference."

"If Louisville gets to 12-0, they will clearly have accomplished enough on the field to have earned a crack at the title."

I think that "if" (and it's a big IF) we have an 11-1 USC Team that beats Arkansas on the road (BCS 11), Nebraska, at Washington State, Oregon (BCS 20), Cal (BCS 8), Notre Dame (BCS 9) and at UCLA, with its only loss on the road, on the last play against Oregon State (BCS 24) USC is more deserving of a National Championship Game than a 12-0 Louisville team with wins over West Virginia (BCS 10) and Rutgers (BCS 13) (notice how I intentionally left off all non-BCS ranked teams).

At least we agree...Louisville has played a better schedule than Boise State...but not as good as USC's.

Now lets stop whining about the Big East haters and focus on more important things like Oregon, Cal, Notre Dame and UCLA. ..because you are a USC alumnus and fan...allegedly.

Fair enough, JJH. I'm glad we could find some common ground. If only Congress was as collegial as the Scott Wolf message board, we might get some problems solved in this country. :)

Let me put it this way: if an 11-1 USC gets into the title game over a 12-0 Louisville, I'll understand why Cardinals fans will be upset, but you won't see me complaining. There will be a legitimate argument for either team. Putting my personal interest in USC winning aside, I do think that if a team wins all its games and plays a reasonably challenging schedule, and is one of only two teams to do so, that's good enough. Another way to look at it is to ask why an unbeaten OSU or Michigan should still have to beat a one-loss team to win the title.

The funny thing about this whole debate is that there really isn't much disagreement among the components of the BCS ratings. The Harris voters have Louisville 3rd, the coaches have them 4th, and four computers have them 3rd and two have them 4th.

Regardless, if Louisville loses, it will all be moot. With one loss, they probably have no case against a one-loss USC, Cal or Florida. And maybe Auburn, too, but I can't imagine them in the title game unless they at least win their division.

Hey Scott,
Are you going to show some love for those Scarlet Knights? W VA and Lousiville, can't handle the targets on their backs for a few weeks, like Trojans have been doing for almost a half a decade. Also, the Scarlet Knights will go down in a jostle with W VA. So far I am two-for-two of my predictions in the Big East. So show some love Rutgers, it will be a quickie.