For the other, less-relevant BCS, check em out here.

But for the latest unveiling of my rankings:

BCS Week 2

1. OSU (--)
2. Michigan (--)
3. USC (--)
4. Florida (+1)
5. WVU (+1)
6. Tenn (-2)
7. Auburn (+1)
8. Louisville (-1)
9. Clemson (UR)
10. Texas (--)

Honorable mention (in order): (ND, LSU, Ark)

I've seen enough to agree with some of the other posters on this forum: Louisville shouldn't be on this list.

I'd say take them out, bump Clemson and Texas up one, and put ND at #10, and you're good to go.

1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. USC- At Oregon St this week, won't be a gimmee. Then Stanford (a gimmee.) Then we find out about them: Oregon, Cal, ND (all home) and UCLA (in Pasadena) four straight weeks to end the season.
4. WVU- Next game is 11/2 at Louisville. I expect them to roll.
5. Florida
6. Texas- Leap over ND by getting lucky against a ranked opponent on the road
7. ND- Fall behind Texas by getting lucky against an unranked opponent at home
8. Tennessee- They bump up one spot on the bye week. Still not convinced, but can't put them behind Cal
9. Cal- Favored by 23 points, they beat UW at home in OT. It must've been in the atmosphere Saturday- a lot of close calls, but the better team won in just about every case
10a. Wisconsin- Failed in their only REAL test at Michigan, but they are 7-1 and their running game is incredible. And I have been winning boatloads of money betting on them, so I have to put them in my top-10
10b. Clemson- One loss was 34-33 at Boston College (6-1)

Next 5:
Auburn, Louisville, Arkansas, LSU, BC

I look for LSU to knock off Tennessee in Knoxville in two weeks.

There's no way BC is better than Rutgers.

The whole point of this thread is to rank teams as you see fit. We will all have some disagreements, which are cool to discuss. My logic was based on:

BC beat Clemson. They beat Virginia Tech. They beat FSU. I'm not saying those are world beaters, but they are not cakewalks. BC lost 17-15 at NC State, one of the strangest teams to try and figure out.

Rutgers beat......Pitt?

I'm sure if they played, it would be a fairly even game. Hell, they are neck-and-neck in the national rankings. But until Rutgers plays anybody of ANY significance, I will rank BC higher. Victories against UNC, Howard, South Florida, and Navy (without their star QB) don't do it for me.

It was the utter domination. I've been to all the RU home games, the Navy game, and watched the rest on TV. They didn't just beat those teams, they dominated those teams.

Rutgers has a chance to run the table.

The whole ACC confuses me this year. One week, a team will look great, the next week, they look horrible.

Meh, all of the good teams in college football dominate weak opponents.

22-20 vs. South Florida? 21-16 vs. UNC? And those teams are jokes. Look at what other teams are doing to UNC.



They are 7-0 because of who they haven't played. I see them losing to Louisville, Cincy, and WVU.



The ACC is a mess. You're right, every team is all over the map.

Cincy? You're kidding me, right?

It's hard to guage a team their first week.

22-20 USF...The score should have been 37-10. Rutgers played a horrible game, amassing penalty after penalty, and dropping passes.

Rutgers will beat Louisville. Their only loss may come to WVU.

Ed, you can't say that they "utterly dominated" all of their opponents and then either ingore or brush away games that they did not. The amount of times a team "plays a horrible game" against a weak opponent is an indicator of how good they are.

I mean I guess Notre Dame "utterly dominated" everyone too. Vs. Michigan Brady Quinn played a horrible game, amassing bad throws and interceptions.

Vs. UCLA the score should have been 37-17. Notre Dame played a horrible game, blowing key third downs and allowing sacks.

I was going to reply with something similar, but I stopped typing when I realized I was arguing about a team that will be playing in the Meineke Muffler Bowl in El Paso, Texas on December 21st.

Ed, I'm glad you are excited about your squad. 7-0 is a big deal, no matter who they are playing. You have to beat the team that lines up across from you. But take a step back and look at what they have done. It doesn't amount to much. I'm more impressed with Cincy going into Ohio State and Virginia Tech and hanging in the game for a half than I am about Rutgers beating UNC or Howard or Pitt. No offense, just my opinion. If Rutgers only loses once, I will be impressed and surprised.

SnJ and Blue Fire (not going to call you BF), I see you both ranked ND above where I had them. I think they can beat any team in the country (and have the firepower to do so) but their inconsistency has staggered me. What they did vs. Penn State was obscene. Utter domination (take notes Ed) of a very solid football team. But Michigan was ugly, Michigan State could have been uglier and UCLA was lucky. Plus they struggled against a G-Tech team that lost big to Clemson (albeit at Clemson).

They could be special, but I just have the feeling that if they get into a BCS Bowl, they better bring their A game or it could look a lot like last year's Fiesta Bowl.

I guess we'll all see.

Bart, by yours and smokins logic, if ND doesn't beat Navy by a better margin of 34-0, then RU is better? Because that's what RU won by.

The only BCS Standings that really matter

1. Ohio State - Consensus #1
2. Michigan - The real National Title game will be played 11/18
3. USC - Unless they slip up, they will get to lose to the winner of the real National Title game
4. WVU - Praying for USC to slip up so they can lose to the winner of the real National Title game

No, if ND doesn't beat Navy convincingly or plays a team like South Florida and loses, then we can talk. If Rutgers beats, L'ville, then we can talk. Squeaking by Division I bottom feeders is not the mark of a great team.

Notre Dame plays both Navy and UNC...we can visit it again after that.

I don't know how you devised that. My logic for these meaningless rankings is as simple as can be. I look at each team and imagine if they were playing all of the other teams this Saturday at a neutral site. I rank them behind the teams I think they would lose to, and ahead of the teams I think they would beat. Obviously, number of losses, who they've played, and how they've played all factor into the equation.

I can't believe that Rutgers is getting so much play in a BCS thread, but speaking honestly, I think they'd lose to BC this Saturday if they played in Rich Stadium. The only reason I think that is because BC was good enough to beat Clemson, VaTech, and FSU (on the road.) Rutgers thus far has zero reputable wins. Sorry man, Pitt doesn't count. The Navy win looks nice on paper, until you realize that Navy was without the guy who makes their offense go for 3.5 quarters. (And when your team is hanging their hat on a win at Navy to validate themselves, that tells you something right there.)

Anyways, you think Rutgers is better than BC, and I think BC is better. Who cares? They are 16th and 17th in the rankings. I don't think it's an issue worth getting worked up about. I was willing to hear you out about your logic which qualifies Rutgers as being good, and you cited their 'utter domination' of opponents, followed quickly by excusing them for the games they didn't 'utterly dominate' bad teams.

Rutgers will have several opportunities to prove themselves, and I will certainly keep an open mind about them as a potential New Years Day bowl team. Right now, I say no way.