Pete Carroll on Saturday night, victorious for the ninth weekend in a row, but also resigned:

Here's the nature of the system that Carroll doesn't understand, doesn't endorse and only exasperatingly accepts: In the first BCS computer poll released this morning, Jeff Sagarin's, Carroll's team is ranked seventh, behind not only Oklahoma, Florida and Texas, but also Utah, Texas Tech and Alabama, and only one spot ahead of Boise State. That's the official score (the "ELO_CHESS," as Sagarin dubs it) in this week's standings. But even Jeff Sagarin doesn't believe that. In the section of the rankings he dubs the "Predictor," his mathematical prediction at what would happen on the proverbial neutral field, Southern Cal ranks second behind only Florida, and would be a double-digit favorite against Utah, Texas Tech and Alabama, three of the teams in front of the Trojans in the ELO_CHESS.

Even among a specialized audience with an intense interest in college football, I suspect most readers here have no idea what the "ELO_CHESS" is, or why it matters. But, like Pete Carroll, you know it doesn't feel right. USC's defense has held 10 of 12 opponents to 10 points or less; ranks No. 1 nationally in total, scoring, pass and pass efficiency defense, and fifth against the run; is in the top 20 nationally in rushing, total and scoring offense, as well as pass efficiency; has a 3-1 record against Sagarin's top 30, the same as Florida, Texas, Texas Tech and Alabama; and joins Florida as the only teams in the nation winning by 30 points per game. Virginia, Ohio State, Oregon, Washington State, Washington and Notre Dame -- fully half of USC's schedule -- all suffered their most lopsided loss of the season at the hands of the Trojans.

This is not an appeal for USC to play in the mythical championship game, because it frankly doesn't have the overall strength of schedule, and Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Penn State and Utah all have equally compelling resumés. In SC's case, there was not enough meat on the bone in the last two months to overcome a bad first half against Oregon State. Under the system, only two teams can play for the so-called title, and in that context, USC's exclusion -- and Penn State's, and Utah's, and Texas Tech's and, yes, Texas' too -- is justified.

Under any fair assessment of how well teams are actually performing on the field, it makes no sense whatsoever. Even the computers think USC would trounce most of the teams they rank in front of it. I do too, in the informal "Predictor" in my head. Texas would also stand a very good chance, and I'm not so sure Penn State would fall by the wayside very quickly.

Not that I have idea how this would actually play out, but that's the point: I do know that all of these teams seem about as good as the two destined for Miami on Jan. 8, and that the factors separating them -- while not arbitrary -- are so small as to be completely absurd as barriers for exclusion. So as we begin a month of obsession over the relative merits and demerits of Oklahoma and Florida and their championship prospects, don't be fooled into thinking these are "the two best teams" in the country, or whatever it is. If that title can honestly exist at all, it's not waiting at the top of the ELO_CHESS.