Your fault here is that you assume logic holds in the whole illogical system of the bcs, whose main components are money, opinions, biases, excuses, t.v., and self-justification. Many things trump logic in the world of college football. Quit thinking and be a sheep!

how you slice this bread, it still crumbles at the touch. Better question: Why is Tech relegated to #12? The biases in football have never accepted Tech athletics as being relevant. Hopefully, if we can build on this year and play in-hopefully win-the championship game soon, those biases will loosen up somewhat. Also, many are really throwing bad karma Tech’s way on a lot of the blogs, especially Ole Miss, UT and A&M people. By staying near or at the top in the future, the arrows are still going to be shot at us, but the arrow bag will be more empty. If all coaches remain, with a new, more seasoned DC added, we could see amazing Red Raider football teams for years to come.

I understand your questioning the #1 & #2 rankings…. but what about Tech below TCU and other non-notables?
So, I will answer this Question, with A Block Quote from your
“Dr Saturday gives Tech some shout-outs after polls are released” post.

Texas Tech is dissed at No. 12 by coaches and writers alike, far behind their 11-2 peers Alabama (No. 6 in both polls), TCU (7th) and Penn State (8th), as well as two teams (Ohio State and Oregon) that finished with worse records and no wins even approaching the value of the Raiders’ takedown of Texas. Which just, you know, beat Ohio State, by the way. The coaches (although not the writers) also rank Georgia ahead of the Raiders, at No. 11.

Ohio State finished 10-3, with all three losses to teams in the final top eight, but beat one team in the final poll (No. 24 Michigan State, hooray) and only one other team (Northwestern) that even received a vote. The Spartans double as the best win on Georgia’s ledger. Texas Tech had a better record than both, wins over two teams in both polls’ top-20 (Texas and Oklahoma State) and over another two teams (Nebraska and Kansas) that received votes. Its resumé is arguably the most impressive of any two-loss team below Oklahoma, and Alabama and Penn State (which have only one win apiece over a top-20 opponent) both lost bowl games in convincing fashion, too. What is the difference?

To me, this sums “their” thoughts, well.

There is BIAS against Tech, even when we do well, and 11 wins and only 2 losses is doing well. You have to discount the OU game as an anomaly. No way we lose that bad except as I have stated before, the proverbial snowball rolling downhill syndrome. We can’t play anymore games so most talk is moot, but I really feel we have been dissed bigtime by the AP by being relegated to #12. At worst, I think we should have been about #8 or #9, which would under the circumstances be very acceptable. As Tech92 pointed out though, we need to win away at the big games. Hopefully, the bad losses against teams that are definately worse than us is in the past. Like all the ‘elite’ teams, those kind of losses will rear their ugly heads from time-to-time, but not every year, and not 2-times a year, as it has happened to us in the past. Actually, the bad loss this year was NOT the OU game (anomaly, remember) but in the Cotton Bowl against Mississippi, a team I think was nowhere near Tech’s level of ability. Seriously! Snead is way below Harrell . Their receivers are not even close to ours. Had Crabs been healthy, maybe things would have turned out differently, but we simply cannot rely on that. You simply have to desire the win more than the opponent. That is what Ole Miss had, and we did not. Why? Because our three musketeers were too busy celebrating and receiving their awards to concentrate completely on the Cotton Bowl. Period! i say move those thing to AFTER the bowls. Oh well. Onward and upward, “wait ’til next year.”

Do they issue a final BCS poll after the season? I didn’t think they did.