Updated BCS Standings
 

With AP, Coaches', Sagarin, and Colley accounted for:

Rank	Team	BCS
1	Southern Cal	0.9770
2	Oklahoma	0.9681
3	Auburn	0.9331
4	Texas	0.8476
5	California	0.8347
6	Utah	0.8181
7	Georgia	0.7033
8	Boise St.	0.6564
9	Virginia Tech	0.6479
10	Louisville	0.6457
11	LSU	0.6076
12	Iowa	0.5519
13	Miami (FL)	0.5105
14	Michigan	0.5091
15	Tennessee	0.4124
16	Florida St.	0.3533
17	Wisconsin	0.3472
18	Virginia	0.2983
19	Arizona St.	0.2567
20	Texas A&M	0.2192
21	Pittsburgh	0.1546
22	Texas Tech	0.1489
23	Florida	0.1375
24	Oklahoma St.	0.0943
25	Ohio St.	0.0914
26	West Virginia	0.0586
27	Boston College	0.0476
28	Oregon St.	0.0333
29	Toledo	0.0220
30	North Carolina	0.0200
31	Colorado	0.0171
32	Purdue	0.0162
33	Fresno St.	0.0152
34	Memphis	0.0119
35	Navy	0.0119
36	Northern Illinois	0.0067
37	UTEP	0.0049
38	Bowling Green	0.0039
39	Syracuse	0.0012
40	Miami (OH)	0.0011
41	New Mexico	0.0006
42	Alabama	0.0002
43	Iowa St.	0.0002
44	North Texas	0.0002

Even if every remaining computer bumps Cal up a spot, Texas still holds on the #4 spot.

Does that matter? Won't the Rose take Cal anyway?

No, they are not allowed under the BCS contract to do that. I guess they could, but that would start a heck of a firestorm. The Fiesta would probably then snub Utah for Texas.

Anyway, Utah is guaranteed one of the two at-large bids as a Top 6 Non-BCS Conference team. Texas then becomes guaranteed the other at-large bid as a #4 BCS Conference team (as there are no at-large teams in the Top 3).

Ah, I didn't know that being the #4 team guaranteed them a spot.

I was just looking at the Coaches Poll, and someone obviously ranked all three USC, OU, and Auburn number one because they each have 1/3 extra of a first place vote. Stupid if you ask me.

I think the rule is that if a team is ranked 3 or 4 and is not a conference champion, they're guaranteed a BCS bid. Since both Cal or Texas would fit that criteria if they were ranked fourth, Cal really needed to beat Southern Miss comfortably to maintain their edge in the polls that was keeping them fourth in the BCS. I don't think that's going to happen.

Meanwhile, the Rose Bowl is going to HATE this.

yeah, the rose bowl is stuck without a Pac-10 team now, right?

Michigan-Texas?

F the Rose Bowl.

Texas-Michigan is a game I've wanted forever. I hope they don't pick Utah to spite us and get a more western team.

Texas and Michigan have never played.

Wow. So what if 3 and 4 were non-conference champions, and 5 and 6 were non-BCS conference champions? 4 guaranteed 'at-large' bids.

I have no idea how all this works but I'd love to see a Cal-Auburn game. Any chance of that happening?

Michigan vs Texas is gonna be awesome. Say what you will about Michigan to end the year, this is gunna be a helluva game between two of the best schools ever.

Well, if it happens.

Nope. Auburn - VT in the Sugar

Well then color me uninterested. What the fuck is the point of this whole thing if you don't have the top teams playing each other? Shouldnt 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 play each other?

EDIT- Nevermind, i think I get it now, Cal is not a conference champ.

2ND EDIT- This whole thing sucks ass.

I don't think Auburn/Va Tech is that bad of a game.

It'll be old school football. Two great defenses just hammering each other.

No, the Top 6 non-BCS teams rule trumps the Top 4 BCS conference team rule.

1. #1 and #2 play for it all.
2. Each BCS conference champ gets in unless #1 and #2 are both at-large teams from the same BCS conference.
3. If at-large spots reamin, Top 6 non-BCS conference team gets in. First #5, then #6. If any teams meet this standard, then Notre Dame also qualifies with 9 wins or a Top 12 BCS ranking.
4. If at-large spots remain, Top 4 BCS conference non-champ gets in. First #3, then #4.
5. If there still aren't 2 guaranteed at-large teams, then the Bowls can select from all eligible at-large teams (the Top 12 in the BCS rankings).

I suppose, i just don't think VT is as good a team as Cal, just wishful thinking on my part cause thats the only game i really wanted to see, or Auburn vs Utah.

Ive read this 3 teams and still dont have a fucking clue.

What the hell does this mean?

:confused:

I vote that should be the new intials of the B(c)S.

TWTSA.

If Colorado would have beaten Oklahoma, but Oklahoma and Texas would have been #'s 1 and 2 in the BCS, OU and Texas would have played in the national championship game and Colorado would not have gone to a BCS bowl. The chances of this happening are remote, but there were scenarios yesterday that could have led to this exact result.

A conference can have no more than 2 teams in the BCS is basically what the rule means.

Lemme take a stab at it

1. #1 and #2 play for it all.
This rule trumps everything else

2. Each BCS conference champ gets in unless #1 and #2 are both at-large teams from the same BCS conference.
[b]Every BCS conference champ gets in unless #1 & #2 are both non-conference champs from the same conference BUT didn't win that conference. i.e., if Tennessee wins the SEC title game, but Auburn & Alabama are ranked #1 & #2 in the overall BCS, then UT does not get an automatic BSC-conference-champ bid[b]

Now, I don't know how to come up with a scenario where this is possible -- both teams from the same BCS conference are #1 & #2 overall, but one of them didn't make the conference championship game (and therefore could not win the conference champ auto-bid), but that's what this stipulation seems to be covering.

Expanding on my post from one above...If all three undefeateds would have lost yesterday, the national championship game may well have been OU vs. Texas. Cal would likely have moved up to #1 in the polls, but they wouldn't have moved past #6 in the computers, which sinks them out of the national title game. The computers likely would have had OU 1 and Texas 2, so depending on how the polls would have turned out, that could have been the national title game. But, you're exactly right that that is what the rule aims to cover.