What a sham.

[Skull]

Utah was undefeated, Boise State was 12-2

[ndeezlo]

I think the only answer to this is to not play as Arkansas.

[twthomas]

Wow! I would actually give EA props for modeling the BCS so accurately!

I say that somewhat toungue in cheek. It is a load but probably not far from true to the
big market mafia led group of money hungry idiots that designed the BCS.

Did I mention I hate the way the BCS works and everything about it?

[nevadawp]

Keep in mind as well that the WAC schedule is completely borked and this is going to happen constantly until they fix it. Nevada and Boise, the two top rated teams in the WAC this year, don't play their scheduled conference game on Nov. 26th. Therefore they will probably finished that first season ranked abnormally high as they don't usually lose to any of the other WAC teams.

Really annoyed by that oversight.

[Sejanus]

Performing teams getting screwed out of rankings? Looks like they went for realism.

... twthomas beat me to the joke. Good form, sir.

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by Skull

Utah was undefeated, Boise State was 12-2

How was BSU 12-2?

[Shawnj86]

Yea the screwed you over
You should at least be in the top 5 maybe top 3

[Pogo27]

Quote: Originally Posted by Shawnj86

Yea the screwed you over You should at least be in the top 5 maybe top 3

Well, there WERE four undefeated teams. And ultimately, I can't argue being ranked behind any team that has fewer losses than I do, generally speaking. Like, realistically, 12-0 Nevada would be ranked behind 12-1 BCS conference team, every time, unless 12-1's one loss was to Nevada, MAYBE.

But I could handle behind ranked 5th with the top 4 teams all being undefeated.

I just don't understand being ranked 9th, behind two teams with two losses each, behind Alabama, who again, I won their division and conference, and behind a team with the same number of losses as I that played in a weak conference and my strength of schedule was clearly better.