The BCS Standings are actually fascinating to watch if you know what to look for; it's really too bad they are shelving the computers in favor of a backroom committee. The system in two years will be far less transparent and far less enjoyable for fans to follow.
One thing to look for is the difference in the three components. Naturally, the two polls pretty much mirror each other because humans are prone to emotion and thus built-in biases. But if a team is ranked right, all three components will match up rather nicely. So when you see numbers beside a team like Florida State, you can easily spot that something is amiss. Numbers that different mean that at least one of those components and more likely two are dreadfully off. If Florida State is truly a Top 10 team, they would have to play about three more ranked teams to bring that computer rating up when the truth is, they have at most one (Clemson) on their schedule. You will also note that that same team, Clemson, has zero computer points (They did get rated in one of the six computers.)
What this means is that Florida State is being artificially propped up by the voters when they haven't played a schedule deserving of a high ranking. Their schedule strength will go up as they sift through the ACC, but it won't approach Top 10 in the computers. Often what will happen is the team ranked too high will lose somewhere down the road, bringing the human polls more in line with the computers. And, the computer rating will go up somewhat (as long as they keep winning) to get closer to the polls.
Obviously if some teams are overrated you will have the exact opposite situation for other teams. Case in point--Rutgers, which is #10 in the computers but much lower in the polls. Rutgers has played a much-more worthy schedule in the tough Big East than either of the two ACC teams. It doesn't mean they'll finish the season higher--they still have to win, but again it points out that something has to give. Another such example is Texas Tech.
These projections are slightly different than the early morning projections, and differences of less than 12 points reflects the margin of error, so the official BCS Standings will deviate somewhat from the projections shown below. They are simply meant to give you an idea what the official Standings look like.
1. Alabama 100.00% + 99.76% + 91.00 = 290.76
2. Florida 90.10% + 91.20% + 99.00 = 280.30
3. Kansas State 89.90% + 89.43% + 94.00 = 273.33
4. Oregon 95.12% + 94.85% + 72.00 = 261.97
5. Notre Dame 82.78% + 82.57% + 93.00 = 258.35
6. LSU 78.92% + 78.96% + 72.00 = 239.88
7. Oregon State 66.03% + 69.60% + 83.00 = 218.63
8. Oklahoma 73.49% + 70.30% + 62.00 = 205.79
9. USC 68.75% + 67.27% + 45.00 = 181.02
10. Georgia 57.63% + 55.76% + 49.00 = 162.39
11. Mississippi State 54.24% + 55.72% + 50.00 = 159.96
12. Rutgers 43.19% + 41.91% + 68.00 = 153.10
13. Texas Tech 38.71% + 37.36% + 74.00 = 150.07
14. Florida State 64.27% + 66.47% + 8.00 = 138.74
15. Louisville 48.81% + 46.05% + 35.00 = 129.86
16. South Carolina 40.54% + 41.36% + 45.00 = 126.90
17. Stanford 27.19% + 32.31% + 51.00 = 110.50
18. Clemson 53.42% + 54.33% + 0.00 = 107.75
19. Boise State 27.59% + 26.50% + 27.00 = 81.09
20. Michigan 17.90% + 17.04% + 18.00 = 52.94
21. Texas A&M 15.53% + 16.17% + 11.00 = 42.70
22. Texas 7.39% + 8.24% + 25.00 = 40.63
23. West Virginia 11.73% + 12.63% + 17.00 = 41.36
24. Ohio 8.95% + 10.19% + 15.00 = 34.14
25. Wisconsin 7.05% + 4.73% + 9.00 = 20.78
26. Louisiana Tech 6.78% + 4.42% + 3.00 = 14.20
27. TCU 4.81% + 6.78% + 0.00 = 11.59
28. Nebraska 4.81% + 4.45% + 0.00 = 9.26
29. Cincinnati 3.46% + 4.03% + 0.00 = 7.49
30. Oklahoma State 2.51% + 2.50% + 0.00 = 5.01
31. Toledo 2.03% + 1.53% + 6.00 = 9.56
32. Northern Illinois .95% + .24% + 2.00 = 3.19
33. Arizona 0.00% + 0.00% + 3.00 = 3.00
34. Tulsa 1.42% + 1.36% + 0.00 = 2.78
35. Arizona State 1.42% + 1.29% + 0.00 = 2.71
36. Duke 1.08% + .35% + 0.00 = 1.43
One thing to look for is the difference in the three components. Naturally, the two polls pretty much mirror each other because humans are prone to emotion and thus built-in biases. But if a team is ranked right, all three components will match up rather nicely. So when you see numbers beside a team like Florida State, you can easily spot that something is amiss. Numbers that different mean that at least one of those components and more likely two are dreadfully off. If Florida State is truly a Top 10 team, they would have to play about three more ranked teams to bring that computer rating up when the truth is, they have at most one (Clemson) on their schedule. You will also note that that same team, Clemson, has zero computer points (They did get rated in one of the six computers.)
What this means is that Florida State is being artificially propped up by the voters when they haven't played a schedule deserving of a high ranking. Their schedule strength will go up as they sift through the ACC, but it won't approach Top 10 in the computers. Often what will happen is the team ranked too high will lose somewhere down the road, bringing the human polls more in line with the computers. And, the computer rating will go up somewhat (as long as they keep winning) to get closer to the polls.
Obviously if some teams are overrated you will have the exact opposite situation for other teams. Case in point--Rutgers, which is #10 in the computers but much lower in the polls. Rutgers has played a much-more worthy schedule in the tough Big East than either of the two ACC teams. It doesn't mean they'll finish the season higher--they still have to win, but again it points out that something has to give. Another such example is Texas Tech.
These projections are slightly different than the early morning projections, and differences of less than 12 points reflects the margin of error, so the official BCS Standings will deviate somewhat from the projections shown below. They are simply meant to give you an idea what the official Standings look like.
1. Alabama 100.00% + 99.76% + 91.00 = 290.76
2. Florida 90.10% + 91.20% + 99.00 = 280.30
3. Kansas State 89.90% + 89.43% + 94.00 = 273.33
4. Oregon 95.12% + 94.85% + 72.00 = 261.97
5. Notre Dame 82.78% + 82.57% + 93.00 = 258.35
6. LSU 78.92% + 78.96% + 72.00 = 239.88
7. Oregon State 66.03% + 69.60% + 83.00 = 218.63
8. Oklahoma 73.49% + 70.30% + 62.00 = 205.79
9. USC 68.75% + 67.27% + 45.00 = 181.02
10. Georgia 57.63% + 55.76% + 49.00 = 162.39
11. Mississippi State 54.24% + 55.72% + 50.00 = 159.96
12. Rutgers 43.19% + 41.91% + 68.00 = 153.10
13. Texas Tech 38.71% + 37.36% + 74.00 = 150.07
14. Florida State 64.27% + 66.47% + 8.00 = 138.74
15. Louisville 48.81% + 46.05% + 35.00 = 129.86
16. South Carolina 40.54% + 41.36% + 45.00 = 126.90
17. Stanford 27.19% + 32.31% + 51.00 = 110.50
18. Clemson 53.42% + 54.33% + 0.00 = 107.75
19. Boise State 27.59% + 26.50% + 27.00 = 81.09
20. Michigan 17.90% + 17.04% + 18.00 = 52.94
21. Texas A&M 15.53% + 16.17% + 11.00 = 42.70
22. Texas 7.39% + 8.24% + 25.00 = 40.63
23. West Virginia 11.73% + 12.63% + 17.00 = 41.36
24. Ohio 8.95% + 10.19% + 15.00 = 34.14
25. Wisconsin 7.05% + 4.73% + 9.00 = 20.78
26. Louisiana Tech 6.78% + 4.42% + 3.00 = 14.20
27. TCU 4.81% + 6.78% + 0.00 = 11.59
28. Nebraska 4.81% + 4.45% + 0.00 = 9.26
29. Cincinnati 3.46% + 4.03% + 0.00 = 7.49
30. Oklahoma State 2.51% + 2.50% + 0.00 = 5.01
31. Toledo 2.03% + 1.53% + 6.00 = 9.56
32. Northern Illinois .95% + .24% + 2.00 = 3.19
33. Arizona 0.00% + 0.00% + 3.00 = 3.00
34. Tulsa 1.42% + 1.36% + 0.00 = 2.78
35. Arizona State 1.42% + 1.29% + 0.00 = 2.71
36. Duke 1.08% + .35% + 0.00 = 1.43
