BTW, for those keeping track of the BCS accumulated polls - as they will affect BCS membership after 2007 - the final top 25 for this year breaks down as follows:

5 each for the ACC, SEC and Big 10
3 each for the Big 12 and Pac 10
2 for the BE
1 for the MWC

(ND is the 25th)

A continuing horse race between the BE and MWC.

Looks like Tigershark needs a "dolly"on this thread too.

Westwolf,agree with your 2005 BCS top 25 conference numbers.
For past two years(2004-2005)I show these numbers;

1.SEC-10
2.Big 10-9
3.ACC-9
4.Big 12-8
5.PAC-10-6
6.BE-3
7.MWC-2
8.WAC-1
9.C-USA-1

Bitter, BITTER jealousy. Ooooooooooooooh. As if JoePa didn't hire the assistants...

It's funny that I was watching the ABC kiss-posterior show yesterday, then saw the one graphic comparing Ohio State, Oregon, and Notre Dame... noting that they showed "4th," "5th," and "6th" unidentified. For some reason, I had forgotten until that moment that a 4th place "at-large" was automatic and immediately figured out that Ohio State and Notre Dame were therefore both automatic. Hence I'm philosophical rather that downright surly... never mind that the system still sucks. What else did I expect from the BCS?

How the Coaches Voted, USA Today, Dec. 5, 2005

You may have seen the list. Steve Spurrier ranked Notre Dame #14 and South Carolina ahead of Clemson. Whether you agree or not, the guy goes against the norm and considering South Carolina's often struggling record, he was the right guy for them.

Temple coach Bobby Wallace has Notre Dame #13.

Houston Nutt of Arkansas did not even rank West Virginia. Either that was an oversight by whomever completed his ballot, or there is one huge bias in there somewhere.

The Bowdens' must not care for former FSU offensive coordinator Mark Richt, both have Georgia #12. Of course Mark has FSU #25. Mack Brown, Howard Schnellenberger, and Ken Hatfield have Georgia #12 also. Darryl D. of N. Texas has UGA #13. Frank Solich has Georgia #15. Wonder where Mack Brown and his Texas buds put Cal last year? They don't seem to like Georgia in much of Florida and Texas. Fellow SEC coaches Sylvester Croom of Miss. State and Spurrier have Georgia as high as #4.

Everyone agreed on Penn State #3, except Texas A&M Franchione and Arkansas' Huston Nutt. The same two had Miami #5, almost as modest as Larry Coker having the Canes #4.

Washington's Ty Willingham doesn't have a high regard for Virginia Tech, ranking them #16.

Blackgold,

Louisvilles #10 number counts towards the BE rank for 2004.

Also, I believe that the top BCS number - not necessarily the BCS rep - is counted towards the BCS rank - so for the ACC that would be Miami at #8.

You correctly noted that Iowa was counted towards the Big10's number because they finished #12 and Michigan - the Big10's BCS rep - finished #13.

More backward redstate attempt. keep bcs as is, no worthless. stop trying to end Big East from boards.

The BCS is dead. Throw the Tostitos in the ocean! Tell Nokia to call someone who cares! Go UPS! Two cans and a string are more reliable!!

Ah, that felt good. That IS good.

Last year I set up a summary spreadsheet of conference rankings in the top 12 and also in the top 25. Now I don't know why other than the fact that both had some significance. Can anyone shed light on it?

Thanks for the link BlackGold.

I clicked on "members" of congressional committee and was prepared to bet the farm that the chairman was from Oregon.

I was wrong. Down the list is one Oregonian, however.

Sooner or later the BCS's inequities are going to manage to piss off a lot of people over the course of several years as various teams / conferences appear to be treated unfairly. I am cheering for Congress to break up the Cartel that is the BCS.

No, I'm not holding my breath, but I think incrementally we will add more games and teams until something like a playoff bracket emerges.

Westwolf,

I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly but here is what was reported in the Atanta Journal Constitution (I'm sure it's already posted here in this thread but I will repost it):

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html

Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:

• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.

• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.

• Number of Top 25 teams.

The interesting note is how do they calcualte the number of Top-25 teams and compare the conferences to each other. Is that BCS number? How do they measure the Top-25 - using the last BCS rank that comes out in December? Many speculate that the number of Top-25 teams required is 25% of the conference size but nothing official has come out about it.

In addition, no where does the BCS list how they will account for the fact that the BE only has 8 teams, MWC 9, and the others have 10, 11, or 12. It will probably only matter to the BE and MWC though.

Blackgold is correct in that no where does it state that UL will count for Pitt nor does it say that the highest rank would be counted instead of the BCS reps number.... at least I couldnt find it and BG confirmed that he hasn't read anything about that either.

Also, as BG noted before, one last point is that while the above list is what was perhaps 'leaked' to the media, I wonder if there are additional criteria that have been kept secret.

Anyway, hopefully we will know more with the hearings.