Look at the component break-outs for last week's BCS poll, then compare it to this week's. In last week's poll, the computer poll component for BC shows them at #7. This week, they're #1, despite the fact that they didn't even play a game. (And no, it isn't because everyone above them lost or played badly...some teams in the 1-6 slots lost, but not all of them.)

So far, the closest to a coherent answer comes from Rael, when he says, "With most teams playing 7 games at most, changes tend to be more pronounced not just when a team wins or looses, but when past opponets win or lose (affecting the 'strength of schedule' ratings)."

I agree this can play a factor when teams are relatively close in schedule strength. However, it's hard to imagine this as the explanation for BC's jump. I looked at it more closely: They leapfrogged LSU, OSU, and ASU. If you check this story at Rivals.com (http://collegefootball.rivals.com/conten... you can see the current schedule strength of the top 12 BCS teams. Jumping over ASU is understandable: BC's sched. strength is measurably better than ASU's. But it's weaker than OSU's by the same amount as it's stronger than ASU's. And if you compare BC's sched. to LSU's, there's no comparison at all -- it's laughably weaker. So, their leap in the computer poll avg. just doesn't make sense, esp. over LSU.

u can't look at it that directly.. its based on different components and it doesnt matter wut the individual parts of the bcs rank the teams just the overal ranking and currently BC is the second best team and that is correct

because the BCS rankings are a joke

What do you expect from a dumbazz computer that is not able to watch the games and judge like a human being?

This is definitely strange!
I also made posted a question yesterday, on how come Virginia Cavaliers are #6 in the computer rankings, regarding their schedule till now, whereas teams like Oregon (#9) and Oklahoma (#14) are lower. Who debugged those softwares?

Computer 'polls' tend to look at a lot of things (except 'margin of victory' which the NCAA made them ignore). With most teams playing 7 games at most, changes tend to be more pronounced not just when a team wins or looses, but when past opponets win or lose (affecting the 'strength of schedule' ratings).

The computers don't watch any games, but with the way the human votes go you wonder how many voters watch any themselves. And most of those who DO watch games vote in the AP poll (which isn't part of the BCS formula anymore). Coaches can't watch a whole lot since they spend their Saturdays on the sideline. For all human polls (including the AP), instead of honestly voting every week, they leave teams at the top who win regardless of who they play to win and how they did it. The fact that there were people complaining about USC dropping to #2 because enough voters bucked that trend is amazing (but you don't hear any of those people now after their loss to Stanford). If BC blows out #8 (in BCS) VT in their own stadium and Ohio State squeaks by Penn State on a controversial call Ohio State will most likely stay #1 regardless of the computers anyway.

For people who think BC is overrated, they will have an opportunity to prove whether they deserve to be that high up or not. The schedule is much tougher from this point out. If they win out, they will be deserving of consideration for the BCS title game. If not, they will have to play for one of the other BCS bowls like most of the teams out there.

This is why I am not in to college football. I don't understand all that crap. Nfl is the best!