Well with a week of people in silly helmets and television injuring color combinations running to and fro to make alums degrees matter just a wee bit more, we finally have something to talk about besides idle speculation! Unfortunately, the results of this week are not enough to get a real power ranking that is driven by actual data, but we do have some poll and computer configurations to give a mini-BCS ordering. But first a couple of thoughts:
1. The pollsters assault on Oregon (from 3 to 14) is reflective of the worst traits of the sport - how do you knock a team down 11 spots for losing to a team you acknowledged was good to begin with? Now if it were 75-0 that is one thing. However, talk about a disincentive. If they were the 3rd best team in the country, losing to the 4th ... wait, I'm trying to use common sense here.
2. In any case, LSU and Boise State clearly had the best results of Week 1, and the rankings reflect that. TCU had the worst week of a ranked team, so there goes that. In any case - I rebuilt the poll set from our initial view. When Week 3 or 4 rolls around, we will have the data (real SoS) to give a data view that does not involve borrowing other rankings, but this is what we have for now.
3. Final disclaimer: A couple of the comments in the first entry for this noted the inherent corruption in the sport, how it treats players poorly etc. Indeed, I'd add that the system is very Republican in how the elite members are conspiring to shut out the "others". Of course that is what makes schools like Boise State and TCU and Stanford protagonists in their own ways. I do not feign blindness to the issues here - it makes the sport sad in a way (personally I don't see why they police amateurism, it makes no sense) - but I love football, both college and pro, and so providing some levity to that end during the season in this group feels like a good idea.
The rankings - average of 3 components (media, coaches, computers). Computer tosses high and low out of three rankings that are at work now. Preseason rankings next to current one.
Team (Last Wk)
1 (1). Alabama (#3 media, #2 coaches, #1 computer)
2 (3). Oklahoma (#1, #1, #2)
3 (4). LSU (#2, #3, #2)
4 (5). Boise State (#4, #5, #4)
5 (6). Stanford (#6, #6, #7)
6 (7). Florida State (#5, #4, #10)
7 (15). Texas A&M (#7, #8, #11)
8 (8). Virginia Tech (#11, #11, #6)
9 (14). Wisconsin (#8, #9, #12)
10 (12). Oklahoma State (#9, #7, #15)
11 (11). Arkansas (#14, #13, #7)
12 (9). Ohio State (#15, #15, #5)
13 (2). Oregon (#13, #14, #9)
14 (13). Nebraska (#10, #10, #15)
15 (16). South Carolina (#12, #12, #14)
16 (24). Mississippi State (#16, #17, #19)
17 (19). Florida (#18, #18, #13)
18 (23). Michigan State (#17, #16, #25)
19 (22). Missouri (#21, #19, #17)
20 (17). Auburn (--, #22, #17)
21 (25). West Virginia (#19, #24, #20)
22 (--). Baylor (#20, --, #25)
23 (10). TCU (#25, #25, #21)
24 (--). Penn State (#23, #20, #25)
25 (--). Texas (#24, #21, #25)
The interesting thing is to see who is ahead of whom between data and humans. Florida State and Nebraska provide good examples of cases where the computer models are not convinced, while Virginia Tech and Ohio State might need a bit for the masses to come around. Anyway, clearly Mississippi State is more valuable than a Brown degree ... I have proof.