I don't want to start a major broo-ha-ha here, especially with LSU and SEC folks, and I appreciate all the constructive suggestions for altering the BCS formula for improving the rankings, especially with regard to margin of victory, and somehow fixing the irony of losing points for potentially beating UGA twice, and seeing UGA drop out of the top ten, etc. etc. etc. These are all valid concerns....
I hate the BCS, but in order to keep consistent with its purpose, the BCS needs that beating-a-team-twice rule. What do we have the BCS instead of? A PLAYOFF. What is the SEC Championship game? A PLAYOFF. Therefore, the BCS must not reward any playoff-ing anymore than it has to. It's a cheap shot within its own rules, and I hate it, but I understand it.
AND HERE IS MY POINT (sorry it took so long). Saban has a heritage, both at MSU and now at LSU, for always influencing his ADs to schedule patsies for many of the initial games. He believes in motivating his players by giving them a bit of an easy road early on, so they gain in confidence.
USC does not use this approach. Now as we approach the end of the season, schools are being rewarded for strength of schedule in the BCS rankings. If USC stays no.2, I for one will think it justified, and a clear warning to all the coaches to not use the Saban philosophy. It gets you in trouble in a pinch.
I am curious to know whether anyone is mathematically adept enough to figure out whether UGA, if it would have beaten LSU early on, would now be ranked ahead of USC. I suspect so, but don't know, and I don't have the time to check relative schedules. I do know the whole heritage of Saban's scheduling philosophy, and there is some poetic justice to his current problem... What goes round comes round...
Arizona was #5 in the country when LSU scheduled them. We scheduled VaTech for two games, and they backed out of the Baton Rouge game to be played next year (to be played in '07). Marshall backed out of a game two months before the beginning of the season. Bowling Green also agreed to a game in BR but backed out. I don't see your "patsy" argument.