http://espn.go.com/college-football...ted-press-poll-alabama-crimson-tide-falls-4th If we get enough #1 votes, wouldn't that put us over the top in the BCS?
We were only 30 points behind KS in the BCS polls, so we should be pretty close to over-taking them with more #1 votes. If we win the next 3 games, it will seal the deal.
Yeah, I'm not worried at this point about making the game as long as we take care of business. We just can't let up.
Well, we have to be concerned about injuries with the next 3 opponents. I think if we don't get healthy we're an upset possibility. If fairly healthy, I see no problems.
The key is Mariota/Barner. If they stay healthy, we will be in any game. Honestly, I think our defense can hold out... unless we lose even more people. Weren't they lining up a TE on the DLine against Cal?
doubt it as they were already rated ahead of KSt. in the human polls and this past weekend didn't help their Strength of Schedule to improve things with the computers. As long as they're rated in BCS's top 2 following the PAC12 championship, I'm thrilled STOMP
Jesus the computer polls can go to freaken hell. We KILLED kansas in the human rankings but look at these computer rankings http://espn.go.com/college-football/bcs The top we get is a freaken 3. Total score is 3:1 4:3 5:2. I can't wait tell these computers dont' get to decide the freaken game because they are programed to pretty much give everyone who isn't in the SEC the shaft.
It doesn't make sense though... maybe you can clear this up. They were barely ahead of us last week. This week we have moved into the first place, which should be worth more points, no? If the human polls are worth 2/3 of the ranking, why wouldn't more first place votes move you up in the BCS? I guess I'm just confused.
Its because of how low the computer rankings have us. We beat out Kansas by fairly large numbers for #1 but were still only on average 60 points ahead of them in the human polls. In the Computer rankings they are significantly ahead of us, our avg rank is a 4 with a 3 as our highest rating while Kansas is an average rank of 2 with 3 as there lowest ranking. Its a much much bigger gap were the computers have us compared to kansas then were the human polls have us.
I think an eyeball test shows that the human rankings are better than the computer rankings. I'm thinking maybe the top 5 should be human only, and the remainder a mixture of computers and humans. I can understand wanting to put some objectivity into the rankings, but I the computers can't take everything into account, and aren't as good as humans. I mean, come on, ain't no analyist who knows his butt from a whole in the ground would rank Oregon #5 like this computer rankings....just complete bullshit.
