No, it's not the same thing. First, they have to play two good teams, not one. Second, the chances of OU not making the championship is small. Third, there's a big difference between beating the two of the top five/ten teams in the country vs not playing any.

If you really think it's KU's championship bid to lose, then WHY NOT put them #1 right now?

Not ranking Hawai'i is absolute BS! I hope they beat Boise St and we can stop this BS. I know they play a weak schedule but they are undefeated. I am not saying they should be number one but when teams in front of them lose they should move up. They can't help that they play in a suck ass conference. True theeir out of conference schedule could be better but who knew when they made the schedule 2-3 yrs ago that the Huskies would suck ass. BSU is a good one loss team. So if they beat BSU will they get any respect. I hope everyone in the top 10 loses this week and causes one big cluster****. God I love chaos!

Hawaii's athletic director?

A team who schedules 2 D-1AA games should never be in the top 10. Sorry.

Because they're not as good as Oregon and their resume is worse. Realistically, most BCS conference schools would win the NC by going undefeated, so the "its their championship to lose" line applies to most of DI-A at the beginning of the season.

I agree with how you feel but blame that idiot organization called the NCAA. Adding on +1 game was the dumbest idea I have seen in college sports. In a "league" that requires perfection forcing teams to play another game was dumb, not to mention the costs it put on lower divisions to add another travel game on their schedule.

I also have a hard time blaming the AD of a mid-major or bottom feeder programs for having soft schedules when just a handful of years ago these teams were looking to just either a. win their conference(mid-major) or b. become bowl elgible.

reasons why no one wants to play Hawai'i

this is from the Fresno St scout forum after last week
it is indicative of the norm and not an exception


Hawai'i is pretty much garbage and the reason no one will play there is crummy field conditions--it's a terrible turf and they let garbage fly around--which leads to unsafe playing conditions

locals are very hostile to guests

calls seem to break the home team's way more often than not

tough to travel to

nothing to gain with a win



sorry, if Hawai'i wants respect, they have to earn it on the road like Fresno St tries to do

That's sick. Pretty sure they have their shot next year & we're going to kick the [censored] out of them.

For the same reason that I wouldn't put Pittsburgh #1 in the NFL, but if they were to beat Indy and New England, I would pick them #1. I'm not going to spend all day explaining that to you.

You can't say anything about Washington, because they haven't beaten them yet anyway.

shouldnt even be a game.

So if you think Hawai'i should be ranked just because they're undefeated, then why shouldn't Northern Iowa be ranked too? The AP allows voters to vote for I-AA teams now and NIU's actually played a tougher schedule. (#147 in D-I compared to #157 for Hawai'i according to Sagarin.)

Also, forget about Boise State. You have to get by Nevada first. They're better than either of the teams Hawaii went to OT with and I think they're good enough to get the win. I'd say Hawaii's more likely to go 9-3 than they are to go 12-0 at this point.

BTW, is there anyway we can get Adam Van Brimmer's vote taken away? He's got Hawaii #5, Boise State #11, BYU #14, and Air Force #25 but he doesn't think that Cincinnatti or Boston College should be ranked.

Figure some people would laugh at this thread now: picking the 2008 NCAAF champion.

I feel like a complete moron after that thread. I actually said that Oregon would be better if they let Leaf play instead of Dixon, LOL. At least I was right about BC .

They can try not going to overtime against god awful teams like San Jose State.

Except Auburn. Cheap shot, but we take what we can get.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but it's not the beginning of the season.

Unless you have "tradition"

the washington game got scheduled this summer.

I don't quite get this whole Washington thing.

3 seasons ago they were 1-10.
2 seasons ago they were 2-9.
last year they were 5-7.

How do you not see a team that sucks ass 2-3 years ago?

pvn,

The number 1 ranking should go to the team that is currently the best team in football and similarly with the #2 ranking. Kansas has not shown that they are this team based on the games they have played to date. I would not expect them to be favored by a fair line on a neutral field if they played LSU or Oregon.

If they beat Missouri and Oklahoma then we will have to adjust how good we think they are. With that extra info I think one could probably put them at #2 or #1 but that doesn't mean that they deserve it now.

A similar point is that if LSU loses this week to Ole Miss then we will have to update how good we think they are and they will of course drop down.

If they went 12-0, do you think they deserve a BCS game?

Given that Kansas is a pretty big underdog to run the table, I would think it makes sense to rank them below LSU and Oregon and plan to move them up if they win, rather than ranking them above those teams planning to move them down if they lose.

But his comment follows your line of reasoning. If it's valid with 3 games to go, it's valid with 12.

That was well said. (something that I'm not usually able to do!)