Exaclty. This article says the good about the BCS is that ND is right where they are supposed to be. But LSU with the same record and more impressive wins don't deserve to be where they are. That's great. :thumb: The BCS is about Money and Match-ups. LSU fans will buy tickets and travel. Plus the team can match-up with anybody in the country. The cards and badgers may be more deserving from a record standpoint but they just aren't as attractive to the BCS. Plus they haven't played four top ten teams on the road.
Again, Wisconsin isn't eligible for the BCS because the Big-10 will have their limit of 2 teams in. Louisville is not as impressive as LSU, even with 2 losses.
Wisconsin is behind LSU because the only thing close to an impressive win is Penn State, and that was at home.
If we are going to use this logic, then he should say USC squandered their talent by losing to an unranked team on the road. Therefore, a no-loss Boise State team should be ranked ahead of them. What was more impressive ... USC beating an average ND team at home or Michigan destroying an average ND on the road. This article could have been much shorter ... all he had to say was "I suck little Petey" and be done with the article.
I can... 1. As was mentioned, Wisconsin is not eligible. 2. We have played 6 teams as good or better than the best team Louisville as played all year. 3. Other than Michigan (to which they lost) the same applies to Wisconsin Do you really think either of those teams is better than LSU? I guarantee you that we would be favored in a head to head game versus either. I think the odds makers would be the best source of college football rankings. When that kind of money is on the line it tends to cut out all of the BS politics. They could careless about who "deserves" what. Their goal is to determine who the best team is period and because there lively hood depends on it. Give Boise St, Louisville, etc a "good effort award" and let the best teams play for the top bowls.
