BCS Standings 11/28
-
tk421BCS standings for week 14.
-
cats gone wildtk421;579693 wrote:BCS standings from SI.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/ncaa/polls/bcs/
Thanks for posting last weeks. -
BlanketLSU stayed 5th???
This cant be right. -
tk421Yeah, I just saw that. These aren't for week 14. Still waiting for those to be released.
-
BlanketBoise State fell to 11th.
-
tk421They still haven't posted the full standings anywhere online that I can find.
-
BlanketLSU 10th
Oklahoma 9th
Michigan State 8th
Arkansas 7th
Ohio State 6th
Wisconsin 5th
Stanford 4th
TCU 3rd
Oregon 2nd
Auburn 1st -
tk4211. Auburn(12-0) .9779
2. Oregon(11-0) .9777
3. TCU(12-0) .9167
4. Standford(11-1) .8413
5. Wisconsin(11-1) .8185
6. Ohio State(11-1) .7632
7. Arkansas(10-2) .7189
8. Michigan St.(11-1) .6980
9. Oklahoma(10-2) .6780
10. LSU (10-2) .6067 -
tk421Didn't quite get Auburn and Oregon's averages.
-
ptown_trojans_1Looks fine to me.
-
BlanketWisconsin goes to the Rose Bowl and Ohio State gets an at large.
-
ironman02tk421;579732 wrote:Didn't quite get Auburn and Oregon's averages.
Oregon was .9777 and Auburn was .9779, I believe. -
BlanketAlso looks like if Oregon or Auburn lose next week that TCU may not get get the National Title birth and it would be either Stanford or Wisconsin.
-
tk421ironman02;579739 wrote:Oregon was .9777 and Auburn was .9779, I believe.
Thanks -
slingshot4everBlanket;579741 wrote:Also looks like if Oregon or Auburn lose next week that TCU may not get get the National Title birth and it would be either Stanford or Wisconsin.
TCU would get it. There is a substantial difference between TCU and Stanford. -
cats gone wildironman02;579739 wrote:Oregon was .9777 and Auburn was .9779, I believe.
Wow, close.
Oklahoma still will probably drop out but Nebraska might jump right into their place. -
ptown_trojans_1Yeah, I still don't see TCU jumping Auburn even if Auburn loses to USCe.
That Bama win to me, pretty much sealed it, I believe, for the voters. -
tk421Blanket;579741 wrote:Also looks like if Oregon or Auburn lose next week that TCU may not get get the National Title birth and it would be either Stanford or Wisconsin.
Stanford and Wisconsin won't jump TCU because they all 3 don't have another game. Why would they move up with none of them playing again? -
slingshot4everBrad Edwards basically just said Arkansas Ohio State is a lock matchup for the Sugar Bowl
-
rydawg5idont know much about this world, but ido know this... if Auburn loses there is absolutely zero, nada, zilch chance that you will see an Oregon vs Stanford rematch in the BCS Champsionship game. If the voters decide to skip TCU they will choose Wisconsin. They will not choose a team in the same conference who previosuly lost by 20 and who does not even have a share of a conference title.
this is 100% take it to the bank -
slingshot4ever^^^^
You are right. I don't think there is anyway Wisky or Stanford jumps TCU at this point. -
Cleveland BuckI'm watching them fawn over Stanford's schedule on there, if their schedule is that impressive, Ohio State's is something special.
W 52-17 vs. Sacramento State (FCS)
W 35-0 at UCLA (4-7)
W 68-24 vs. Wake Forest (3-9)
W 37-14 at Notre Dame (7-5)
L 52-31 at Oregon (11-0)
W 37-35 vs. USC (7-5)
W 38-28 vs. Washington State (2-9)
W 41-0 at Washington (5-6)
W 42-17 vs. Arizona (7-4)
W 17-13 at Arizona State (5-6)
W 48-14 at California (5-7)
W 38-0 vs. Oregon State (5-6)
or
W 45-7 vs. Marshall (5-7)
W 36-24 vs. Miami (FL) (7-5)
W 43-7 vs. Ohio (8-4)
W 73-20 vs. Eastern Michigan (2-10)
W 24-13 at Illinois (6-5)
W 38-10 vs. Indiana (5-7)
L 31-18 at Wisconsin (11-1)
W 49-0 vs. Purdue (4-8)
W 52-10 at Minnesota (3-9)
W 38-14 vs. Penn State (7-5)
W 20-17 at Iowa (7-5)
W 37-7 vs. Michigan (7-5) -
slingshot4everSchedules appear about even to me.
-
dlazzptown_trojans_1;579755 wrote:Yeah, I still don't see TCU jumping Auburn even if Auburn loses to USCe.
Uhhh....no.
Auburn would fall to at least fourth or fifth. Computers would off-set any voters at that point. -
Cleveland Buckslingshot4ever;579784 wrote:Schedules appear about even to me.
They would, but they aren't.