Ugh...an AP voter let's us in on his vote and thoughts..

[Eric]

I don't think teams should be ranked by how light the schedule is. People should rank teams on how good they are coming into the season. That takes a little mix of facts (basing on last year's preformance) and some projections (how good they look coming into this year). Florida might have 4 losses because of the difficult schedule, but that doesn't mean they aren't a top 15 team.

Florida could go undefeated playing West Virginia's schedule and WVU might have 5 losses playing Florida's. Why should the schedule make a difference on where teams are ranked? That makes no sense to me.

[Spence]

You have to take the schedule into consideration, otherwise it would be impossible to rank them fairly. If Florida loses(to a good team) it is possible that they hang around and eventually find themselves in the top 10, because of their schedule. If West Virgina loses (to anyone other then Louisville), because of the schedule, they would probably drop too far to be ranked in the top 10 at the end of the season.

[billybud]

Poblem is, wins are counted far more than quality of opponent...

Example...2004

11-1 Louisville.(loss to 9-3 Miami) is ranked above 10-2 Georgia (losses to 13-0 Auburn and 10-3 Tennessee)...

Louisville won 10 playing in CUSA...and beat Boise in the bowl

Georgia won nine in the SEC (including playing 13-0 Auburn, 9-3 LSU, & 10-3 Tennessee) and beat a 9 win Big Ten team (Wisconsin) in the bowl.

Louisville got a higher ranking but did not have as high a degree of risk regarding opponents played.

[RazorHawk]

I don't think a weak schedule should play a part in the preseason ranking, but eventually it will affect the final outcome, due to the win/loss record.

I would not rank West Virginia in the preseason top 5, but because of their schedule they will probably move up there. Also, unless there are two undefeated teams, they may eventually get to the championship game.

[Spence]

I don't think a weak schedule should play a part in the preseason ranking, but eventually it will affect the final outcome, due to the win/loss record.

I would not rank West Virginia in the preseason top 5, but because of their schedule they will probably move up there. Also, unless there are two undefeated teams, they may eventually get to the championship game.

You wouldn't rank WVU in the top 5 because of their schedule, but you don't think the schedule should play a part?

I ranked WVU high because of their win over Georgia (in Georgia) and returning experience. I felt that they earned that ranking because of what they did last year. Now if the lose to a low ranked team, the fact that they don't have many chances to prove themselves would be why I would drop them farther then a team like LSU, who will have to prove themselves several timed during the season. I think the schedule plays a huge part in how teams are ranked. Especially as the season wears on.

[Eric]

Wait a minute, Spence. I'm not exactly following you. If I was ranking using the schedule as a factor, I'd have West Virginia #1 because it is somewhat likely that they will be undefeated. That shouldn't mean anything. As I said earlier, Florida may be undefeated if they played West Virginia's schedule, West Virginia may have 4 losses if they played Florida's. The schedule a team plays has nothing to do with how they compare to the rest of the college football landscape in the preseason.

[..fanatic]

I think you have to consider the schedule in a preseason poll. You can't say these are the 25 best teams because no one's played a game. You're not only guessing who is going to be the best, but who is most-likely to survive their schedule and end the season with a good enough record to be #1.

That doesn't mean that you should rank a team #1 if you think it could go undefeated against a blatantly weak schedule. Such a team should be ranked like Tulane was in 1998 when they finished 12-0 and ranked 7th.

If a pollster is voting WVU #1 at this stage, he must be thinking that they are the only team likely to run the table. Otherwise, there's no real excuse. If you believe Notre Dame and West Virginia, for example, are both going to go unbeaten, you have to put ND ahead of WV because there is no question that Notre Dame has to defeat a stronger slate of teams.

It is certainly logical to consider if a 12-0 West Virginia shouldn't be ranked below an 11-1 Notre Dame. Again, SOS plays in ND's favor. BUT - if Notre Dame has two losses, I would then take WVU in front of ND. After all, winning your games does matter.

If Ohio State, USC and West Virginia all wind up unbeaten, it's a pretty safe bet who will be left out of the national championship. The big question would be who would go to the BCS title game if Ohio State and West Virginia are each 12-0 and Notre Dame is 11-1?

I must say, however, that I wonder how anyone can justify voting Notre Dame #1 right now. They have lost at least three games every year since going 11-1 in 1993. And they haven't won a bowl game since then, either. They also have a very tough schedule that includes playing at USC. If you're ranking teams based on the likelihood that they will go unbeaten, Notre Dame is not high on the list.

[Spence]

Thanks, ..fanatic, that is what I was trying to say.

I didn't vote Notre Dame #1 because I didn't think they proved anything last year, except that their offense is good enough to be ranked.

West Virginia won a BCS bowl against Georgia (in Georgia). That is why I ranked them high (not #1, but high). They deserved to be ranked high based on who they beat last year and the fact that they return a lot of those same guys. A loss on their schedule, though, would be devastating to them in the polls.

[Eric]

Let's say we take the 2005 All-American team and say they're an eligible college football team and they have a schedule consisting of USC, LSU, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Auburn, Alabama, Virginia Tech, Miami, Oregon, UCLA, and Texas last season. Should we rank the AA team #8 in the preseason because we are predicting that they finish 8-3? They would clearly be the #1 team in the nation.

I think schedule should play a part while the season is going on. Like ...fanatic said, an 11-1 Notre Dame should be ranked ahead of a 12-0 West Virginia if they didn't beat everybody on the schedule by an average of 30 points or something.

Isn't the whole point of a preseason poll to rank teams on how good the pollsters think they are instead of how the schedule plays into their favor? Like billybud said a while ago, the season will work itself out.

[..fanatic]

Isn't the whole point of a preseason poll to rank teams on how good the pollsters think they are instead of how the schedule plays into their favor? Like billybud said a while ago, the season will work itself out.

Therein lies the problem with pollsters. Each has their own independent idea has to what the methodology should be. Some think they should rank them based on how they think they'll finish. Others rank them on where they think they should be in week one. Some rank them based on ease of schedule and ability to run the table. Others rank 'em on toughness of schedule and reward them for playing the harder teams. Some look at how likely they are to beat the crap out of everyone versus skating by with narrow victories. And others look at what conference they are in and promote them or demote them on that basis. Some look at tradition and history and others have unavoidable regional bias.

There are no clearcut guidelines for all of the pollsters to be held to for accountability. What you wind up with, if you really broke it down, is an incoherent amalgamation of conclusions drawn from an assortment of theories.

I trust computers far more than human polls. I believe they strip away all the BS and get down to brass tax - who did you play and did you win. Humans tend to over-analyze.

[mountainman]

What you wind up with, if you really broke it down, is an incoherent amalgamation of conclusions drawn from an assortment of theories.

[billybud]

Jag's Top 25...another fan based poll...for your edification.

http://www.jags-top25.com/pollresults.html

I have followed Jag's for years...I use another name on that board but it's a decent group of fans...

[Spence]

I did do my rankings based on how good I thought the teams were, whether or not a team has a chance to run the table wasn't a concern for me. As the season goes forward schedule will count more and more. I guess what I am saying, Eric, is that it looks like we are on the same page on this one. I thought you were talking about the ranking system as a whole.