Let me take a crack at this BCS thing. Here are my gripes with the current standings:
2. Oklahoma State
5. Boise State
*Obviously LSU is where it needs to be. OSU is as well. Bama at #3 is wrong, in my opinion. Common sense tells me that a team with one loss is not as good as a team with zero losses. Granted, the one loss by Bama is to the top team, but they still lost. Stanford and Boise State haven't. I'd put Bama at #5 behind Stanford #3 and Boise State #4.
*To me, the Sooners are going to have a hard time getting any higher. The only way OU gets to the national title game now is by winning in Bedlam and hoping that Oregon beats Stanford. Even then, the Sooners' one loss came to a crappy Texas Tech team. Bama's only loss (assuming they finish unbeaten) is to #1. Boise will not have lost. I can't put OU ahead of Boise, Bama or Oregon because of that loss to the Red Raiders. Beating #2, to me, doesn't outweigh Bama and Oregon losing to #1 and Boise going unbeaten.
*My WHOLE ARGUMENT from the beginning of this BCS thing is this: how do you know if this is a true champion? I hate the way the BCS is decided by computers and dudes in their mom's basement watch games through his thick, black-rimmed specs that are only held together by masking tape. Those number crunchers, accurate as they may SEEM, will never be as decisive as a college football playoff. SAY Bama beats LSU in the BCS title game. All that says to me is both teams are 1-1 against each other. Yet, Bama takes home the trophy because they won last. That isn't a fair representation of the true BCS champion. If Bama and LSU had to go through a month-long postseason gauntlet, and then played in the title game against each other, I'd be able to crown Bama a champ if they won that game BECAUSE THEY EARNED IT through a playoff. There have been plenty of times in the NFL that the team that won the Super Bowl lost to its SB opponent in the regular season. They had to FIGHT for that berth in the title game. That's the difference. Don't just gift Bama a spot in the championship game because they are "the best team outside of LSU" by popular opinion. The court of public appeal means nothing. It's about wins and losses.
Another gripe I have… rewards for easy scheduling. The perfect example is Houston. If Tulsa and Houston swap schedules this year, would TU be ranked #11 in the BCS, like the Cougars are now? Is that fair? Who have they played? Let's see:
UCLA (5-4), North Texas (3-6), Louisiana Tech (5-4) and Georgia State (2-7)
Combined overall record of opponents: 15-21
Oklahoma (8-1), Oklahoma State (9-0), Boise State (8-0), North Texas (3-6)
Combined record of opponents: 28-7
The only common opponent is North Texas. Houston beat them, 48-23. Tulsa won, 41-24. Throw that game out because the results were basically the same. Tulsa is essentially punished for playing difficult games. Houston is rewarded for playing cupcake teams. Is that fair?
If I had a vote, the BCS might look a little bit different.