I couldn’t help myself, I clicked the link.
From the “article”:

I understand a lot of people from Penn State are making noise about the “common opponent” argument vis-a-vis OSU. Don’t worry, I won’t hold it against the Nittany Lions that they could hardly score 13 points on the Buckeyes.

He just happened to forget about the other OSU. Idiot.

Heck, I’ll definately enjoy the Rose Bowl with USC and Penn State, assuming that’s what happens. It’ll be great football. It just won’t be the best pairings that fans could have hoped for.

Can we really take seriously a nimrod who, A: misspells ‘definitely’ in the same manner as every 12-year old, B: can’t maintain a coherent singular/plural relationship from beginning to end of a sentence, and C: ends a sentence with a preposition; yet said nimrod holds a position with one of the biggest newspapers in the country?

Like Kevin said earlier- keep blaming the death of newspapers on the internet.

Those insufferable BCS rankings say so. I’m no fan of the BCS, either, but Penn State has a number next to its name that is larger than the one next to Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and even Utah.

Um…for the same reason, shouldn’t Penn State then make the same claims? Obviously we would gain more respect if we played a team with a lower number ranking than USC (who’s number next to their name is also bigger than most of those teams). Doesn’t this guy understand that any of those Big 12 teams would in return be bummed about “only” playing USC as well? They’re about right where they belong in standings and who they are playing against.

I also wish there was a “significance” or confidence number associated with the BCS scores, or someting more like a “standard deviation”. Instead they pretend that these BCS scores are exact out to 4 (count them, FOUR) decimal places. I’d imagine a more rigorous look at it would look something more fuzzy, like
1. Alabama 0.9713 +/- 0.05 (0.9213 – 1.0213)
2. Oklahoma 0.9351 +/- 0.05 (0.8851 – 0.9851)
3. Texas 0.9223 +/- 0.06 (0.8623 – 0.9823)
4. 0.8851 +/- 0.09 (0.7951 – 0.9751)
etc. (I made up random numbers for the +/- just as an example)

This would show that there is actually a lot of inaccuracy and overlap in these “rankings” and that just because one team has an “exact” value higher than another team doesn’t necessarily mean they are that much better/more deserving. But as it is now people place 100% confidence in this rather arbitrary (and subjective…you can’t get much more subjective than a vote by people who don’t even watch the games) number.