Utah beat BYU, TCU, and Oregon State (who USC lost to).
Penn State beat Ohio State on the road, throttled everyone they played at home (including Oregon State who USC lost to).
So Utah, Penn State, and USC have 1 opponent in common who only USC lost to (were dominated by) yet USC is ranked ahead of the other two with an inferior record to both.
USC's only meaningful win was over an Ohio State team that doesn't even resemble the current version
Hmmmmmmm
What's the problem? Since when does a schedule make the team (over a short time?) They are ranked where they are in spite of ther SOS because they are better than ONLY their SOS. Since when is the SOS the MOST important factor? Who made you the judge of that? And since when does "current version" matter in the ranking? They were the #1 team at the time USC beat them.
If you are so right then why has Texas been rated higher than Oklahoma when Oklahoma beat Texas? If you were right about anything you say, then you'd be pointing out that absurdity instead. Your "outrage" is ingnorable because you ignore what's really outrageous.
USC had nothing to do with the strength of the conference this year. It takes nothing away from the strength of the team which counts most in the rankings.
It's not about what you earn. You haven't "earned" a penny in your life so what would you know about the meaning of the word "earn?" You should be the one to talk. (as if)
What about things like reputation, roster, record (over the long haul?) Look at the real fraud this year, take for example the SEC. They play 4 nobody's at the start of the year and 7 teams were ranked in the top 10 anyway. Who did most of them beat? Now that is absurd. I can see that you missed the real issue AGAIN. If all those SEC teams can get ranked beating nobodies, than what's the problem when the same thing happens to USC, which can beat any of them? They will lay a whipping on 'Bama when the time comes this January and you know it. The polls know it too and they've penalized USC for it all they need to do.