BCS Rankings 2013: Teams That Aren't Receiving Enough Respect
The Week 10 editions of the 2013 BCS rankings have been released. There have been changes near the top, and new contenders have emerged, but the most notable stories are about the teams that haven't received the proper level of respect.
Countless teams are built to be powerhouses in the BCS rankings but have yet to receive the recognition they deserve. Regardless of why that may be, numerous teams aren't receiving enough respect.
Here's which teams should be higher.
No. 11 Auburn Tigers
Record: 7-1, 3-1 SEC
Week 9: 45-10 win vs. Florida Atlantic
Week 10: at Arkansas
The Auburn Tigers have been one of the most pleasant surprises of the 2013 college football season. After going 3-9 overall and 0-8 in the SEC just one year ago, Auburn is now 7-1 with a 3-1 record in the most heralded conference in the nation.
With two signature wins, Auburn deserves to be in the Top 10.
The Tigers defeated Florida Atlantic 45-10, but that dominant performance wasn't the result you need to know. Auburn went on the road and beat Johnny Manziel and the No. 12 Texas A&M Aggies by a count of 45-41.
Two weeks prior, the Tigers defeated the Ole Miss Rebels 30-22.
As a one-loss team that won by more than 30 points, it's highly questionable to leave Auburn in the same place, No. 11, as it was last week. That may change as the season progresses, but to date, Auburn has played at a greater level than a number of teams ahead of it.
Auburn's next test will be on the road against the Arkansas Razorbacks.
No. 22 Michigan State Spartans
Record: 7-1, 4-0 Big Ten
Week 9: 42-3 win at Illinois
Week 10: vs. No. 21 Michigan
The Michigan State Spartans suffered a 17-13 loss to the Notre Dame Fighting Irish on the road. That defeat was sustained on Saturday, Sept. 21, more than one month ago.
Michigan State has since crafted a record of 7-1 overall and 4-0 in the Big Ten. In its most recent performance, Michigan State defeated the Illinois Fighting Illini 42-3 on the road.
Are the Michigan State Spartans underrated?
Somehow, that all adds up to Michigan State being ranked No. 22 in the nation.
The Spartans may not have a signature victory, but they've won their past two games by a collective score of 56-3. More importantly, Michigan State is a Big Ten school that is currently 7-1 with a perfect record in the Big Ten.
If a 7-1 record plus a one-possession road loss to a Top 25 team adds up to a ranking of No. 22 in the latest BCS polls, I'm missing something.
There's no question that Michigan State has issues to fix on offense, but the computers shouldn't penalize success. Michigan State is in the hunt for the Big Ten Championship, and with a win over the No. 21 Michigan Wolverines, they would earn a definitive edge in the Legends Division.
With Jeremy Langford recording three consecutive games with at least 100 rushing yards, the Spartans deserve to be ranked higher.
No. 23 UCF Knights
Record: 6-1, 3-0 AAC
Week 9: 62-17 win vs. Connecticut
Week 10: Bye
The UCF Knights moved to 6-1 during Week 9, earning a dominant 62-17 win over the Connecticut Huskies. It wasn't a win over a signature opponent, but it's difficult to criticize a team for earning a 45-point victory over a conference opponent.
Somehow, UCF hasn't cracked the Top 20 in the BCS rankings.
The Knights own a 38-35 victory over the No. 19 Louisville Cardinals and a 34-31 win over the Penn State Nittany Lions. Both victories were on the road and each established UCF as one of the better teams in the country.
If that's not enough to convince you, UCF's only loss was a 28-25 defeat at the No. 14 South Carolina Gamecocks.
UCF goes into a bye week in a dangerous position, as the likelihood of it moving up in the BCS rankings after a Saturday of inactivity is slim. Despite playing at a Top 20 level, UCF will instead hope that it can win its final five games and receive some shred of respect.
Until then, No. 23 is simply too low for UCF to be ranked.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?