As someone who is in 2012 and will probably AGAIN not be in the championship game, I feel for USC. However, to complain that the bcs system doesn't work because the "number 1 team" isn't in it is ridiculous.

If the college system wanted to pit #1 against #2 automatically, they could have. However, there were flaws in the old system of rankings. Just because the media and/or coaches "think" that usc is #1 doesn't make it so. Everyone is making a big deal about how computers can't account for all the little things that go into figuring out who is #1. I entirely disagree.

Human decision doesn't really differ than computer calculations. At their core, both computers and humans factor in numerous things and come up with a conclusion. The only real difference is that humans are ineffective at it.

What goes into a coach's decision when voting on the rankings of a team? Is he going by team color? No, he's obviously looking at several things including obviously record, strength of schedule, how the team looked in those games, etc etc etc. The problem lies in that there is no exact calculation as to what each factor gets. It's much like how steve knew ahman green was going to be good b/c he "felt it in his bones."

Did any coach/media watch every minute of usc or lsu's season? do they really know anything about the strength of schedule. It really bothered me when the USC coach said "the outcome of the norte dame vs. syracuse game shouldn't influence the title picture." uh, why not? Sure, if you look at that one particular game, it's a little startling that the "outcome" hinged on those teams. But obviously, the strength of schedule MUST have some influence. Isn't it more impressive to beat a good team than a weak team. All that last game did was determine that Norte Dame was a little worse than originally thought and thus USC beating them was a little less impressive.

The inherent problem with college football is obviously that there are too many teams to conclusively determine anything about who the "better" team is. I don't think college basketball has the same problem b/c they've created a tournament where "anything can happen." College football fans delude themselves into THINKING that they can determine who the best team is. That's their ultimate fallacy. how many "real" games did usc have this year? 3? 5? And we are supposed to know if they are better than another team who've they haven't even played once? It's impossible.

So, instead of a back room where a bunch of old men smoking cigars can "conclude" that team A is better than team B, a system was created that attempted to objectively rate teams. Is this system perfect? Of course not. No system is. There are thousands of things to consider. Unless we are willing to have the top teams play each other hundreds of times, we have to admit that we'll never be able to precisely determine who is better. But to dismiss computers as inaccurate simply b/c you can actually put their criteria on a piece of paper is wrong. Why do we respect the illogical human mind? Would you rather have coaches simply say "dang, jethro, ND is a good team and USC beat them. they must be good."

If you don't like the formula that the computers use, come up with something better. Make it objective and get it implemented. Don't go around and say "see, everyone thinks we are good, so we must be."

"The polls are clear," USC coach Pete Carroll said. "There's not even a question as to who the No. 1 team in the country is."

by that definition, it's "clear" that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and were behind 9/11.

And ahman green is good.