2005 BCS Final Rankings (1 Viewer)

[walkmac]

I was reviewing some of the 2005 NCAA football season and I found what looks like the final BCS Rankings for the year. It is obviously after the Rose Bowl, as Texas is listed as 13-0 and USC as 12-1. Yet the BCS has USC as #1 (.987 average) and Texas as #2 (.973 average). Can anyone explain?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/bcs/

 

[Blitzkrieg88]

I was reviewing some of the 2005 NCAA football season and I found what looks like the final BCS Rankings for the year. It is obviously after the Rose Bowl, as Texas is listed as 13-0 and USC as 12-1. Yet the BCS has USC as #1 (.987 average) and Texas as #2 (.973 average). Can anyone explain?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/bcs/

The top 2 ranked teams play for the championship. Regardless of how the computer rankings end, the winner of the championship game are the BCS National Champions.

 

[thesurfshop19]

It's not the computers, it's the Harris Poll which isn't updated after the championship game.

The computers aren't, and have never been, the problem with the BCS. The problem has been the thinking that a 2-team playoff is sufficient if the objective is to crown a national champion. (If that isn't the goal, frankly, the pre-Bowl Coalition system with the tie-ins was far better.)

 

[thesurfshop19]

And, I just realized, that they don't update the "BCS average" score either.

There's no fair way to do so, since all the components that feed into it aren't updated (only the computers and the coaches poll are).

You're looking at the numbers that determined who played for the championship, nothing else.