Who here thinks BSU will cover 38 after La T ech racked up 683 in offense last week on Idaho, although they suck. Considering BSU is nummer 1 in total defense at 210 a game? I am not sure BSU covers although I am a huge fan.
Who here thinks BSU will cover 38 after La T ech racked up 683 in offense last week on Idaho, although they suck. Considering BSU is nummer 1 in total defense at 210 a game? I am not sure BSU covers although I am a huge fan.
On sportcenter on Saturday they said Auburn would probably be #1 in the BCS come Sunday.
And when you look at who they beat, how could they not be?
On sportcenter on Saturday they said Auburn would probably be #1 in the BCS come Sunday.
And when you look at who they beat, how could they not be?
It's not about Auburn being #1 or not.
It's the problem where computers can definetely play a role in determining the BCS standings.
Before this was a problem, and computers were given 1/3 of the formula.
But now, with only 1/3 of the vote, they are able to put Auburn on top of the standings where the other two polls, which is 2/3 of the formula ranked them #3.
So, 2/3 of the votes still not enough for this system.
Sagarin Ratings for example has Oregon #6 and Boise St #11.
So, Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss) are ALL better than Oregon.
And Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss), TCU, LSU (with a loss), Ohio State (with a loss), Stanford (with a loss) are ALL better than Boise St.
It's not about Auburn being #1 or not.
It's the problem where computers can definetely play a role in determining the BCS standings.
Before this was a problem, and computers were given 1/3 of the formula.
But now, with only 1/3 of the vote, they are able to put Auburn on top of the standings where the other two polls, which is 2/3 of the formula ranked them #3.
So, 2/3 of the votes still not enough for this system.
Sagarin Ratings for example has Oregon #6 and Boise St #11.
So, Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss) are ALL better than Oregon.
And Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss), TCU, LSU (with a loss), Ohio State (with a loss), Stanford (with a loss) are ALL better than Boise St.
The BCS is a joke.
Since they don't want teams to run up the score, the computers don't count margin of victory. I can see that, but what about giving credit for teams that win by more than 8 points.
A two score lead takes away the luck factor (usually).
By the way, who out there would have figured USC to be ranked higher than Texas of Florida by now? And only a 6 point dog to the #1 team, even with 2 losses?
The BCS is a joke.
Since they don't want teams to run up the score, the computers don't count margin of victory. I can see that, but what about giving credit for teams that win by more than 8 points.
A two score lead takes away the luck factor (usually).
By the way, who out there would have figured USC to be ranked higher than Texas of Florida by now? And only a 6 point dog to the #1 team, even with 2 losses?
It's not about Auburn being #1 or not.
It's the problem where computers can definetely play a role in determining the BCS standings.
Before this was a problem, and computers were given 1/3 of the formula.
But now, with only 1/3 of the vote, they are able to put Auburn on top of the standings where the other two polls, which is 2/3 of the formula ranked them #3.
So, 2/3 of the votes still not enough for this system.
Sagarin Ratings for example has Oregon #6 and Boise St #11.
So, Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss) are ALL better than Oregon.
And Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss), TCU, LSU (with a loss), Ohio State (with a loss), Stanford (with a loss) are ALL better than Boise St.
It's not about Auburn being #1 or not.
It's the problem where computers can definetely play a role in determining the BCS standings.
Before this was a problem, and computers were given 1/3 of the formula.
But now, with only 1/3 of the vote, they are able to put Auburn on top of the standings where the other two polls, which is 2/3 of the formula ranked them #3.
So, 2/3 of the votes still not enough for this system.
Sagarin Ratings for example has Oregon #6 and Boise St #11.
So, Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss) are ALL better than Oregon.
And Missouri, Michigan State, Auburn, Wisconsin, Oklahoma (with a loss), TCU, LSU (with a loss), Ohio State (with a loss), Stanford (with a loss) are ALL better than Boise St.
Yes and they are. But like VGPOP, I was under the impression that computer counts for 1/3 of the ranking, is it not? Just want to be sure.
Yes and they are. But like VGPOP, I was under the impression that computer counts for 1/3 of the ranking, is it not? Just want to be sure.
I totally agree with you but you know it's not going to happen anytime soon. Those greedy A.Ds will never agree on anything no matter how big the pie is.
I totally agree with you but you know it's not going to happen anytime soon. Those greedy A.Ds will never agree on anything no matter how big the pie is.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.