 |
||
| Rank | Team | Delta |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | |
| 2 | Florida | |
| 3 | TCU |
 1 |
| 4 | Texas |
1 |
| 5 | Cincinnati |
 2 |
| 6 | Georgia Tech | |
| 7 | Pittsburgh | |
| 8 | Boise State | |
| 9 | Oregon | |
| 10 | Stanford |
7 |
| 11 | LSU |
2 |
| 12 | Oregon State |
9 |
| 13 | Oklahoma State |
6 |
| 14 | Southern Cal |
2 |
| 15 | Ohio State |
1 |
| 16 | Virginia Tech |
2 |
| 17 | Iowa |
6 |
| 18 | Clemson |
6 |
| 19 | California | |
| 20 | Penn State | |
| 21 | North Carolina | |
| 22 | Arizona |
8 |
| 23 | Miami (Florida) |
13 |
| 24 | Wisconsin |
1 |
| 25 | Navy | |
| Last week's ballot | ||
I gave my thoughts on why I'm not yet willing to rank Rutgers on Monday. Even though two more wins will make their W-L total look even nicer, are they really going to signify all that much? The only way I'll rank the Knights without a win over WV is if their resume looks stronger (i.e. UConn wins, OOC wins win), or if other teams ahead of them look weaker. Do I think that Navy is better than Rutgers? Not necessarily; in fact, probably not. But they're going to have to earn it in my book.
For anyone wondering about why I still have USC so high, keep in mind that I value SOS very highly. Even though they've stumbled as of late, USC has played a ridiculous schedule, and still did beat Ohio State. The Big Ten is awful this year, and the Pac-10 looks pretty good, and I weigh those factors quite a bit too.
Based on their SOS worsening, and a second straight close win, I dropped Cincy behind TCU and Texas. I'll still jump them back up if they prove that they deserve it.
It should be clear though that I'm not even remotely comfortable with these rankings. Yes, the concept itself is a bunch of hogwash, and I'm sure any past beliefs attaching mythical significance probably look very silly in retrospect. I can't help but think that none of these teams below the top 10 are all that great. For example, Oklahoma State and Oregon State deserve their rankings with respect to how they compare this year, but doesn't it seem like, intuitively, that they "feel" more like a team that should be in the 20s or so? It's more of an indictment of how much parity exists today, not that I'm complaining about that.