re: Can someone explain why SOS "Strength of Schedule" is not considered more?

quote:

---

I can tell you exactly why! USCw is a media darling

---

If that's the case, why was USC #5 in 2008? Here's a link to the final BCS standings and USC who was #1 early in the year, was stuck at #5 with just one loss, even though if we used the "eyeball" test that was used for Alabama last year, they should have been in the game or at least #3, but they weren't, why is that? How did the media forget their darlings and why didn't they try and fix the system after that?

ETA for link LINK


USC lost earlier in the year than Florida, OU and Texas. Yet they remained ranked lower than all 3, kind of strange the media would rank their "darling" so low don't ya think?

quote:

---

Now a bunch of people even here will tell you that USCw should have been in the championship game that year... but they are wrong and just as biased as the people that changed the system.

---

There is nothing more ironic than someone that is extremely biased calling other biased. Your comments show you have an extreme bias against USC.

My opinion was then as it was last year and remains today, that if you don't win your conference, you should not be in the BCS CG. Sorry, it's not a provable mathematical fact that OU was "better" than USC in 2003. It's just an opinion. If you think OU was better, played a tougher schedule, that's fine and perfectly valid. But don't sit here and say anyone that disagree's is just biased and loves USC. Nope, if the "eyeball" test was valid because it favored an SEC team in 2011, then it's valid for other teams as well.