All three are averaged with equal weight, 1/3 each. There would have had to be substantial change in the Coaches poll. Both voting polls were very close and even though the Computers only counted 1/3 it outweighed the two voting polls. If you mean the two voting polls are not averaged then equal with the computers, they are all three averaged. Have you figured out just how many points the Coaches poll would have had to move to put Texas in?
This guy makes a few good points re the debate over who's #1: http://cfn.scout.com/2/828799.html And BTW ..... in two BCS-MNC games against the #1 ranked teams, UF's defense has held those teams to 3 offensive (4 total) touchdowns in 8 quarters of football. Looking back at the stats, those 2 teams were averaging 12.1 (tOSU) and 14.6 (OU) TDs per every 8 quarters of football they played.
Interesting stats there Gaterz. Shows you that "defense wins championships" isn't just a tired cliche. One thing about this Florida defense that is so unlike the one in 2006...... .......It's coming back!!!! 8)
MCG I agree with what Urban Meyer said about the UF defensive performance against OU ....... it shows that Charlie Strong is a very good coach.
The original reason I replied to your post had more to do with Corey's remark about us poor folks here not being able to understand the facts and logic you put forth. My reply to you was not to start an argument with you but being curious as to how accurate your post was relative to the BCS poll. When I looked it up and found out how close the Coaches poll was and saw that the real culprit was the computer polls I tried to point that out without being offensive. However posting back and forth with you gets a bit difficult because you like the short sarcastic post and if posted back to there's another short sarcastic reply and never, never, never question what gipper has to say. Well in fact this time you are pretty far off base. And until I made that post to you last night I hadn't figured out how many needed to change but after giving up on reasoning with you and making that post I did a couple of minute look at the last poll before the Big 12 game and yes did come up with the number. If you want to lay the whole thing at the feet of the coaches, which is silly by the way, Texas would have had to gain 34 votes to edge Oklahoma out in about the 4th decimal place. Since there were 61 coaches who voted about 56% of them would have had to rank Texas one spot higher than they were ranked. That number could be reduced if any coach ranked them more than one spot higher, or if in the process of raising Texas someone lowered Oklahoma. Regardless whether you like it or not, or want to make another scarcastic remark back to me or not it was the @#$!@#$$ computers that screwed Texas. Not the coaches, not the Harris but the computers.
I liked it better in the old days when it was a true beauty pageant; one or two polls, the standard bowl games. Seems like we have more controversy now since we tried to "fix" it. Florida won "when" it had to and won "how" it had to. No other team can make that claim except Utah and does anyone here seriously think, with all the marbles on the table, that Utah would beat Florida?
What about a 1-loss USC team? But to answer your original question, we'll never know, at least until Dave tells us. :wink:
George, I agree and disagree with you: Agree. Even though you are a young old-timer, I guess we recall the merits of the polls-only days when there might be controversy but it was never at the level it is today. Disagree in the sense that because of how they destroyed Alabama, it is reasonable to think it would be possible. I have no problem whatsoever with Florida being #1, but when you go back and look at the Sugar Bowl results, at the very least you might want to conclude that OK was the wrong opponent.
Sid....as I have seen it suggested by the media and I also have suggested.....Florida with Harvin ( as they would have had for Utah but not for Bama ) and Alabama with Smith ( as they did have for Florida but not Utah ) is an entirely different set of very significant circumstances. Throw in the fact that Alabama had lost it's sights on the prize when playing Utah as opposed to their complete focus for Fla in the SECCG, and then considering that Florida had it's focus clearly on the NC prize when playing Okla ( or Utah in this case ) and I think Utah would have found the test of playing the Gators to be most severe and this Bama-Fla-Utah comparison loses it's relevance.
Let the PAC-10 conference expand to 12 teams, lose it's special tie-in to the Rose Bowl, implement a conference championship game .... and maybe USCw will have a better chance to earn their way into the BCS game title? A question .... how would USCw done against .... say Utah .... on a neutral field?
Since any and all speculation about Utah seems to be based on how they did vs. Alabama could there be any question that the Utes would beat the snot out of USC? :lol:
The round robin format remains the best way to determine the conference champion. Everyone plays everyone else.
Seems to be working well for the Big-12 and SEC .... with them having teams in 9 of the 12 BCS games .... with a Big-12 vs SEC match up in 2 of those nine ..... and finally either an SEC or Big-12 team winning the last four BCS title games. Maybe, just maybe, a conference title game will help both the Pac-10 and Big-10/11 with more entries into and performances in the BCS title game.
Gaterz, You don't even see the flaw in your logic and what is ultimately the flaw in the super conference system (and eventually the BCS system). You guys, by design of the system, are given brownie points for playing a conference title game.. but do you have a true conference champion?? No. You don't know how the teams in your conference would do if they had to play everyone else. The Pac10 does. You are asking that they take their conclusive results, and toss them aside for your beauty pageant.... No thank you. The SEC expanded to 12 teams, as did the Big12, and expects the rest of the country to follow suit... Why? We know what happens in the Pac10. You play every member of the conference. You don't get that in the SEC or the Big12. Oh sure, you get yourselves a sexy, poll-favorite title game.. but you can't say conclusively that your team (or any other team in those super conferences) could truly be unbeaten or once beaten in conference. You chose not to do that. Before you dismiss the risks of playing 'lesser' teams.. I'd like to remind you that you lost to Ole Miss this year and you have traditionally had lots of trouble with the likes of Auburn and even Miss State .. but you don't have to worry about them every year.
:lol: Hey IC ...... set the rhetoric aside and just look at the BCS title games and their results. Anyway, I stated the change to a conference championship game by the Pac- and Big- 10s ..... may help with improving access to and performances in the BCS title game. If you think it would have no favorable impact ..... that's fine.