Read on for rankings. If you don't like them, wait a minute. They'll probably change again...

My best guesses on C-USA CCG hosting scenarios.

If Tulane wins out: They would win the West with the head to head advantage over NT and Rice, and with a win over #50 Rice would probably have a better BCS ranking than either ECU or Marhsall (or MTSU).

If Rice and NT win out: Tulane would then have 2 conference losses, Rice and NT would be tied at 1 but NT would have the tie breaker. I don't think NT's remaining opponents are strong enough to make up the 9 spots between them and ECU but they would likely host over Marshall or MTSU if one of them wins the East.

If Rice wins out and NT drops a game: NT has a pretty easy remaining schedule so I don't see this happening, but if it does, Rice wins the West and may have a better BCS ranking than anyone from the East.

Here are the most likely championship game scenarios IMO (not necessarily in order of probability)

ECU @ Tulane
Marshall @ Tulane

NT @ ECU
Marshall @ NT

ECU @ Rice
Marshall @ Rice


Remaining opponents for likely division champs

Rice: La Tech (107), UAB (108), Tulane (50)
AVG: 88.3

Tulane: UTSA (93), UTEP (120), Rice (52)
AVG: 88.4

Marshall: UAB (108), Tulsa (105), FIU (115), ECU (46)
AVG: 93.5

ECU: Tulsa (105), UAB (108), NC State (87), Marshall (80)
AVG: 95

NT: UTEP (120), UTSA (91), Tulsa (105)
AVG: 105.3

(11-03-2013 10:01 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  47. ECU
49. Tulane
50. Rice
56. North Texas
78. MT
79. Marshall
85. WKU
93. FAU
103. Tulsa
107. Louisiana Tech
108. UAB
115. FIU
120. UTEP
121. USM
999. UTSA (would be 93)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs

How are we behind Rice after we beat them?

How is Tulane still in the top 50 after losing to FAU?

These are bad rankings.

(11-03-2013 10:23 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:01 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  47. ECU
49. Tulane
50. Rice
56. North Texas
78. MT
79. Marshall
85. WKU
93. FAU
103. Tulsa
107. Louisiana Tech
108. UAB
115. FIU
120. UTEP
121. USM
999. UTSA (would be 93)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs

How are we behind Rice after we beat them?

How is Tulane still in the top 50 after losing to FAU?

These are bad rankings.

Those rankings are from 7 days ago. The new ones come out tonight.

(11-03-2013 10:23 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  How are we behind Rice after we beat them?

How is Tulane still in the top 50 after losing to FAU?

These are bad rankings.

I just checked, and I messed up. Official rankings aren't out yet. These are Jerry Palm's projections.

(11-03-2013 10:26 AM)MagNTX Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:23 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:01 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  47. ECU
49. Tulane
50. Rice
56. North Texas
78. MT
79. Marshall
85. WKU
93. FAU
103. Tulsa
107. Louisiana Tech
108. UAB
115. FIU
120. UTEP
121. USM
999. UTSA (would be 93)

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/bcs

How are we behind Rice after we beat them?

How is Tulane still in the top 50 after losing to FAU?

These are bad rankings.

Those rankings are from 7 days ago. The new ones come out tonight.

They are this weeks but they are guesses more or less.

Mmm.... Something doesn't smell right.

Don't believe this has been updated...........correct ?

You NT folks are all over me.

Sorry, I jumped the gun. I'll update everything when the actual rankings come out.

(11-03-2013 10:30 AM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  You NT folks are all over me.

Sorry, I jumped the gun. I'll update everything when the actual rankings come out.

lol... No problem. I can't wait to see the new rankings.

ECU is not 32 spots better than Marshall. This is way the hell off. These 2 teams are pretty close in talent level.

(11-03-2013 10:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  ECU is not 32 spots better than Marshall. This is way the hell off. These 2 teams are pretty close in talent level.

Whatever. We certainly have had a season that is 32 spots better than theirs at this point, and that is what these rankings measures. They have beat no one, and you are pretty quick to forget just how aweful that defense looked a couple weeks ago when they faced a halfway decent offensive team. They might upset us but no reason we should ever rank behind them with the little substance as they have put together and losses to teams we already beat or are better than like Ohio.

(11-03-2013 11:44 AM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 10:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  ECU is not 32 spots better than Marshall. This is way the hell off. These 2 teams are pretty close in talent level.

Whatever. We certainly have had a season that is 32 spots better than theirs at this point, and that is what these rankings measures. They have beat no one, and you are pretty quick to forget just how aweful that defense looked a couple weeks ago when they faced a halfway decent offensive team. They might upset us but no reason we should ever rank behind them with the little substance as they have put together and losses to teams we already beat or are better than like Ohio.

Sorry.. I have to agree with Fo Shizzle. I think marshall is on par with us if not slightly better. I say slightly better because of the suspensions and injuries we sustained. Now with a kicker who has seem to have a confidence issue, I wouldn't be surprised if Marshall will be favored over us. If we can get some of these suspensions back I think we will be better off. We still give up way too many yards via the pass for my taste.

Are we good? Yes Are we the best team in the league? debatable.

(11-03-2013 12:06 PM)ECU_Pirate Wrote:  Sorry.. I have to agree with Fo Shizzle. I think marshall is on par with us if not slightly better.

Which has zero to do with rankings of how good your season has been to this point. Apparently you guys fail to grasp the concept. Marshall has beat no one, they have lost to a team we beat and they have lost an extra game vs a crappier SOS. They absolutely deserve to be well behind us and others like UNT or Tulane in any rankings. It's also not like their players did anything last year that would to give you any confidence to fall back on. Had they won 8 or 9 games perhaps you still believe somewhat and they would be higher because they would have started higher but they were losers that are off to a mediocre start. They have done nothing to inspire any hype people around here people have given them.

Quote:Are we good? Yes Are we the best team in the league? debatable.

We could lose to Marshall and still have the better season and be ranked higher. It might be debatable but you guys are constantly hyping the wrong team. UNT, Rice, and Tulane have everyone had more impressive seasons to this point and deserve the respect before a team with the actual substance of Marshall.

(11-03-2013 12:59 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 12:06 PM)ECU_Pirate Wrote:  Sorry.. I have to agree with Fo Shizzle. I think marshall is on par with us if not slightly better.

Which has zero to do with rankings of how good your season has been to this point. Apparently you guys fail to grasp the concept. Marshall has beat no one, they have lost to a team we beat and they have lost an extra game vs a crappier SOS. They absolutely deserve to be well behind us and others like UNT or Tulane in any rankings. It's also not like their players did anything last year that would to give you any confidence to fall back on. Had they won 8 or 9 games perhaps you still believe somewhat and they would be higher because they would have started higher but they were losers that are off to a mediocre start. They have done nothing to inspire any hype people around here people have given them.

Quote:Are we good? Yes Are we the best team in the league? debatable.

We could lose to Marshall and still have the better season and be ranked higher. It might be debatable but you guys are constantly hyping the wrong team. UNT, Rice, and Tulane have everyone had more impressive seasons to this point and deserve the respect before a team with the actual substance of Marshall.

Look I am not debating rankings. I am not hyping Marshall. I am just stating in my opinion, they are closer to us than you think. Especially with the injuries and suspensions we have incurred.

If we we lose to Marshall on paper can have a better season... but imo we wouldn't have accomplished what we needed to accomplish. I wanted us to do 3-1 OOC, beat Marshall, Host C-USA championship, Win C-USA championship and win our bowl game. Anything else and I don't see it as a successful season with what we had coming back.

Haven't the legitimate BCS standings been released yet? With so much congestion at the top of the conference it would be good to see where we all stack up just in case it gets down to the BCS tiebreaker.

(11-03-2013 09:22 PM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  Haven't the legitimate BCS standings been released yet? With so much congestion at the top of the conference it would be good to see where we all stack up just in case it gets down to the BCS tiebreaker.

The projections have been updated (he probably has more of the info from more polls) but I still haven't seen the full BCS rankings released for all teams.

I updated the OP but I still can't call them official because the site I am getting them from says projected.

Official top 25 is

1. Alabama
2. FSU
3. Oregon
4. Ohio State
5. Stanford
6. Baylor
7. Clemson
8. Missouri
9. Auburn
10. Oklahoma
11. Miami
12. South Carolina
13. LSU
14. Oklahoma State
15. Texas A&M
16. Fresno State
17. MSU
18. NIU
19. UCLA
20. Louisville
21. UCF
22. Arizona State
23. Notre Dame
24. Wisconsin
25. Texas Tech

OP is now official rankings

46. ECU
50. Tulane
51. North Texas
52. Rice
76. MT
80. Marshall
85. WKU
93. FAU
105. Tulsa
107. Louisiana Tech
108. UAB
115. FIU
120. UTEP
121. USM
999. UTSA (would be 91)

(11-03-2013 09:46 PM)TheEastisPurple Wrote:  OP is now official rankings

46. ECU
50. Tulane
51. North Texas
52. Rice
76. MT
80. Marshall
85. WKU
93. FAU
105. Tulsa
107. Louisiana Tech
108. UAB
115. FIU
120. UTEP
121. USM
999. UTSA (would be 91)

So the question is could Tulane, North Texas, or Rice catch ECU if they have the same conference record? I suppose an ECU loss to NC State could make a difference.