Fanbogs - College Football Weblogs

October 31, 2005

BCS Poll 2005 - Week 3

  Harris Poll USA Today Computer Rankings BCS
  TEAM RK PTS % RK PTS % A&H RB CM KM JS PW % COMP AVG BCS AVG PRVS
1 USC 1 2808 .9940 1 1544 .9661 24 24 22 23 24 23 .940 T-2 .9767 2
2 Texas 2 2714 .9607 2 1485 .9581 25 25 25 25 25 25 1.000 1 .9729 1
3 V Tech 3 2613 .9259 3 1431 .9232 23 23 24 24 23 24 .940 T-2 .9294 3
4 Alabama 4 2453 .8683 4 1349 .8703 22 18 21 22 22 22 .870 4 .8695 5
5 UCLA 6 2198 .7781 7 1200 .7742 21 21 20 20 20 20 .810 6 .7874 6
6 Miami 5 2290 .8106 5 1285 .8290 18 17 12 17 15 14 .630 10 .7566 7
7 Penn St 10 1818 .6435 11 927 .5981 20 14 23 21 21 21 .830 5 .6905 9
8 LSU 7 2171 .7685 6 1215 .7839 15 19 15 11 9 10 .510 T-14 .6875 8
9 Florida St 8 1947 .6892 8 1060 .6839 13 12 13 10 13 13 .510 T-14 .6275 10
10 Ohio St 12 1572 .5565 12 827 .5335 17 13 17 19 19 17 .700 8 .5967 13
11 Georgia 11 1712 .6060 10 966 .6232 16 22 16 9 8 12 .530 12 .5864 4
12 Wisconsin 14 1362 .4821 14 739 .4768 19 20 18 18 18 18 .730 7 .5630 12
13 Oregon 13 1364 .4828 13 782 .5045 14 0 19 15 17 19 .650 9 .5458 11
14 N Dame 9 1865 .6602 9 988 .6374 4 2 4 4 7 4 .160 22 .4859 15
15 T Tech 16 1142 .4042 17 596 .3845 5 15 10 16 16 15 .560 11 .4496 16
16 Florida 15 1238 .4382 15 648 .4181 12 16 8 8 10 9 .390 16 .4154 19
17 West Va 18 897 .3175 16 597 .3852 10 10 14 14 14 16 .520 13 .4076 17
18 TCU 19 736 .2605 20 398 .2568 11 11 11 1 3 11 .360 T-18 .2924 18
19 B College 20 719 .2545 19 445 .2871 7 4 6 6 6 6 .240 20 .2605 14
20 Auburn 17 988 .3497 18 514 ,3316 0 6 0 0 0 0 .000 NR .2271 22
21 Michigan 22 431 .1526 23 178 .1148 8 9 9 13 12 7 .380 17 .2158 25
22 Colorado 24 242 .0857 24 121 .0781 9 8 7 12 11 8 .360 T-18 ,1746 24
23 California 21 600 .2124 21 327 .2110 0 5 0 0 0 0 .000 NR .1411 23
24 Fresno St 23 414 .1465 22 248 .1600 0 0 0 0 0 1 .000 NR .1022 NR
25 Oklahoma T-32 10 .0035 T-30 12 .0077 6 0 5 7 4 5 .200 21 .0704 NR

Posted by Kevin Donahue

 

Comments:

  1. Fanblogs Author Kevin Donahue said:

    posted on October 31, 2005 7:50 PM — link — abuse?



    Oklahoma is ranked higher in the computers than Notre Dame, Auburn, and Cal?

  2. JC in SoCAL said:

    posted on October 31, 2005 8:30 PM — 68.190.252.242 — link — abuse?



    Welcome to another week of as the world turns in the BCS. Its still troubling to see the computer geeks fascination with Texas. Texas is still number one in all the computer rankings. While last week USC was 5th in one poll and this week 3rd in another. Kevin I hear you how is Oklahome even on the radar with these standings. I said it last week and I'll say it again. Texas watch your back. VA-tech is coming hard. With VA-tech's schedule of Miami, Virginia, and then FSU in the ACC championships game. Texas maybe looking at the short end of the stick this year.

    Also, its about time the overhyped Georgia machine came to a stop. I think everyone saw this one coming with that 23-20 escape from Arkansas last week and without Shockley it was over. Georgia however will lose two more times to LSU and Auburn. Welcome to the Citrus Bowl Georgia your season is done.

    And, finally USC, way to come out with a solid top to bottom effort on WSU. I can already see the haters crackin on the win but this WSU team was putting up 38 a game and came away with 13 points, 7 of which were in garbage time. And the offense as usually was ridiculous. What a month left of college football. Let the fun begin.

  3. Brian said:

    posted on October 31, 2005 8:49 PM — 24.155.71.173 — link — abuse?



    None of those 4 teams has beaten anyone half decent though Kevin, it's tough to argue for any of them.

  4. Regan said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 12:08 AM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?



    I feel obligated to pull out the conspiracy junk, it's BCS time:

    October 15: Southern California needs a bad call and a bad non-call to be able to escape from South Bend after a fierce 60 minutes of football.

    Result: Southern California loses ONE first place vote to a Texas team that blew out Colorado.

    October 29: Texas is down by 16 at halftime to Oklahoma State, but ends up blowing them out 47-28. Southern California blows out a Washington State team no better than Colorado.

    Result: How many AP Votes did Texas lose to Southern California?

    Maybe the AP Poll isn't so perfect after all...

  5. Skip said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 1:30 AM — 140.180.160.20 — link — abuse?



    Well, yeah -- Oklahoma's three losses were to 8-0, 8-0 and 8-1 teams. It sort of makes sense that the comps put them relatively high.

  6. LSU #1 said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 11:06 AM — 68.159.18.156 — link — abuse?



    All I have to say is see ya' in the sugar bowl!!!

  7. Keith said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 12:02 PM — 150.135.67.53 — link — abuse?



    Texas lost 2 first place votes. Are you claiming that Oklahoma State is on the same level as Notre Dame?

  8. Robert said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 4:26 PM — 168.8.240.60 — link — abuse?



    What does GA Tech have to do to gain respect? Tech has only lost 2 games (one to undefeated VA Tech) and has beaten football power teams such as Auburn and Clemson. If Notre Dame was in the same position, the idiot voters in the polls would have them ranked in the top 5. Give GA Tech the respect they deserve!!! Remove the human element from the official rankings!!

  9. Jmiller said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 5:04 PM — 68.158.227.90 — link — abuse?



    JC in SoCAL,
    You know nothing about football. Shockley is goign to be back next week. Georgia has a good program and almost beat flordia, a quality opponent, with a second string quarter back that had never started in his life, as well as taking a very limited amount of snaps. You are a complete ******!

  10. Regan said:

    posted on November 1, 2005 8:29 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?



    Keith (#7):

    Ironically, my question wasn't supposed to be rhetorical (should have phrased it differently). I feel better knowing it was only 2 votes.

    My point was that regardless of the quality difference of Oklahoma State and Notre Dame, the difference was Texas ended up having a blowout win and Southern California lost on the field and escaped with two bad calls. How good the opponents were is irrelevant.

    Blowout beats stolen win, IMHO.

  11. JC in SoCAL said:

    posted on November 2, 2005 11:21 AM — 67.113.165.178 — link — abuse?



    Jmiller first of all who has Georgia beat? Really? Tennesse, South Carolina??? Is that it, I don't think I saw a ranked opponent there. But I'll give you Tennesee. They were ranked when you played them, then tanked their whole season. So that doesn't count. We will see at the end of the month. Georgia has two more loses coming. So hang on.
    Jmiller you are right on one thing. Georgia has a good program NOT a great program. A top 25 team not a top 10 team. Dont' blame your loss on your second string quaterback. Blame it on the fact that you rely on Shockley for everything. Georgia is a one dimensional team that got exposed when they didn't have your star. You cannot go undefeated when you have one guy. you have to be more than that to run the table. Game over try again next year, your season is done.

  12. WVU SAYs said:

    posted on November 2, 2005 1:26 PM — 4.155.69.37 — link — abuse?



    LOOKing to see ya LSU and good luck the rest of the season.

  13. RJYH said:

    posted on November 2, 2005 2:29 PM — 72.147.79.74 — link — abuse?



    @JC in SoCAL:

    Couldn't the same thing be said for USC? They beat Arizona, a team already flattened by a one loss LSU team, whooptie doo. They beat the snot out of a suffering WA team too. Again, whooptie doo. SoCAL beat this year's SEC whipping dog Arkansas; the whooptie-doo song yet again. Oh, and let's not forget the present from the officials in the Notre Dame game, bad calls staining the victory for another whooptie-doo!

    I'm sorry but VT's victory over G.Tech looks far more impressive than anything by USC this year. But wait! That was just one game for VT, have they beat anyone else? Has Bama pulled off a big win other than against Florida? Texas, have they beat anyone of notariety at all, besides a below average Oklahoma? Miami, in the top five, already has a loss making their arguement moot. Getting to the point, these arguements, while fun, aren't the issue. What's more they degenerate every program that lives in a given conference (for example I left off the T.T. game in the Texas statement). These things need to be decided on the field of play, period.



    The BCS is hosed, and even sports writers are living on speculation. Coaches are guessing based on limited time to view whatever is on TV when concerning teams outside of their conference or schedule. Even considering every stat, notebook, and game-tape, those with voting power in the polls are stuck with blow-outs, major upsets, and players performing above their "level" for sixty minutes on game-day. It's why they play the game, but when it comes to the best -- we, and the computer, live on speculation.

    In a year when there is only one or two unbeatens, the choice is fairly easy. Yet even then, could an unbeaten Pitt handle a one-loss UGA? Can anyone really believe, after last year, that Oklahoma was a better choice to play against USC for the championship than Auburn?



    The polls are fun, but aren't reliable. The BCS is cute, but inneffective at best. It's high time that we, the fans, demand a playoff. Don't cry education either, since we have collegiate world series and the nc2a tournament, each being post season play for those sports. Otherwise, we're going to be screaming "who has X played?" until a fare-you-well.

  14. ryan shad said:

    posted on November 4, 2005 9:45 AM — 128.227.55.50 — link — abuse?



    Let's face it, the BCS sucks and always will. Since it doesn't seem that a playoff system will be in place anytime soon, then there should at the very least be some changes made to the elements of how the polls are determined. First off, there should only be one poll. Four polls is absolutley ridiculous and just furthere clouds the issue of who is ranked where. Margin of victory should never really be a factor, because after all, a win is a win.
    Polls should start out being based on strength of schedule. A team that's playing (and winning) against some of the best opponents should obviously be ranked at the top. This would most likely eliminate the debate over who should be ranked higher than the other, and would probably hurt teams that everyone thinks is good, but really is just overrated because they play week opponents (USC, Texas). The equation for the rankings should be quality of opponents divided by the number of wins against these opponents. We'll say that a quality opponent will be any team ranked in the top 20 or so. However, a team that is winning against top ten teams should certainly be ranked higher than a team that is beating teams ranked 11 or higher. That way, if a team suffers a loss against a quality opponent, it won't necessarily knock them out of the equation for a national championship, because they can make it up by beating other top ranked teams on their schedule.

  15. RJYH said:

    posted on November 4, 2005 1:22 PM — 65.4.51.185 — link — abuse?



    Ryan - good points. However, I don't think polls should even be generated in the first five games. A lot of sports-writers admit to an unwritten rule that unless their "number one" loses, that they cannot let them drop from the top spot. Silly, but true.



    While I generally agree that multiple polls are harmful to determining the national champion, sometimes those extra polls prevent mis-justace. A couple of years ago, the title was split between USC and LSU--since the BCS wouldn't let them play on the field, that's the way is should be. Last year, USC should have shared the title with Auburn, but the multi-polls got whipped into line (I guess).


    If there are two undefeated teams after the bowl season this year, the title should be shared as well. The BCS was supposed to prevent this, but has failed so miserably that a shared title is a must. It's so simple that it's amazing that the concept is overlooked. We've had shared titles since the dawn of college football, and until a playoff exists--they should just deal with co-nat'l champs.


    My personal opinion is that the BCS was dreamed up to put smaller schools back in their place after the NCAA limited scholorships to "level the playing field." We can't have a level playing field, so the BCS was concieved to break what was fixed. (prior to the 80's, schools like 'Bama, the Irish, and Trojans could recruit players simply to keep them away from their opponants; often, this would leave smaller sun-belt type schools out in the cold.)

  16. Bryan said:

    posted on November 6, 2005 12:13 AM — 68.186.236.114 — link — abuse?



    Recommendation to BCS -
    Conferences that do not have a championship game should compete against a second conference that also does not have a conference championship to level off the quality games and incourage these conferences to add a championship game.

  17. JD Williams said:

    posted on November 7, 2005 1:59 PM — 67.187.66.250 — link — abuse?



    OK Texas doubters and VA Tech "overraters", you got what we've all been waiting for and KNOWN was coming. PROOF...UT #1, USC (will fall)...so whoever the BCS offers up as the Rose Bowl victim, it's Texas #1. And for a while, so sit back and enjoy the streak, it's gonna be a long one.
    Hook 'em!!

  18. Jake Fegan said:

    posted on November 10, 2005 10:19 PM — 208.48.238.22 — link — abuse?



    Does USC keep BCS spot #2 if they finish the season with one loss and there are no other undefeated teams? I would be utterly shocked if Alabama runs the table and would be even more shocked if Texas loses. Therefore, there could be several one-loss teams vieing for the #2 spot for a chance to play the Longhorns in the BCS title game. If Alabama, USC, and Miami all finish with one loss, then I think Miami will get the nod.

    On another note, who wins the Pac 10 if UCLA and Oregon win out, forcing a three-way tie? Does UCLA get the BCS bid by virute of beating USC and not having to play Oregon? I think there is some rule that allows a team to win a tiebreaker, even if they lost a head-to-head matchup, to take the BCS bid if they are ranked more than 5 spots ahead of the team they are tied with in the BCS standings. Personally, I think UCLA should get the bid if they finish with one loss. Even though they got drubbed last week, the Bruins could pull off on an upset against their SoCal rivals because anything goes in rivalry games.

  19. Kevin Brennan said:

    posted on November 14, 2005 8:27 PM — 198.152.12.67 — link — abuse?



    U know, the BCS formula must have been written by a Notre Dame hater! They can't seem to get a break in the BCS formula. No respect. There are other flaws, but this one is obvious!

  20. Hal Mettes said:

    posted on November 27, 2005 2:50 PM — 152.163.100.139 — link — abuse?



    We are at the end of November. Why have all of the polls disappeared?