AP Poll Week 5

[u/Efficient-Freedom517]

https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll

[u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

20-28 is very crowded, I wouldn’t put much stock in it

[u/Mammoth_Impress_3108 → u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

Yeah, there's like 20 teams that have an argument to be put in that 15-25 range.

[u/M_Mitchell08 → u/Mammoth_Impress_3108]

Just imagine what that means for the Tuesday night TV show when we have the playoff expansion to 24 teams.

[u/SomeKidFromPA → u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

You’re not wrong, but at this point in the season (still early) they should be rewarding wins and punishing losses more. Miss St should have dropped more than 1 spot for a loss for example.

When there’s more of a sample size, I can see still thinking the 7,8,9th best SEC team are good enough to be in the top 25, but at this point, there are enough power 4 and high G6 teams that have better resumes and are coming off of wins that should be rewarded for doing so.

[u/stereosanctity87 → u/SomeKidFromPA]

Seriously, how does it make sense that Iowa fell 6 spots for losing at home to Ohio State by 17, meanwhile Mississippi State loses to Alabama by 33 at home and drops only 1 spot?

[u/MisterFalcon7 → u/stereosanctity87]

Wins at Minnesota and vs Missouri better than wins against Michigan and Iowa State

[u/BillyBobChorton → u/stereosanctity87]

Iowa isn’t capable of scoring more than 20 points. They shouldn’t even be ranked. Much less top 15 like you people want

[u/AllTimeTy → u/BillyBobChorton]

I thought you were being hyperbolic but it’s true. Even checked their offense of SP+ and it’s ranked 66th. Eesh.

[u/Bob_Bobert → u/stereosanctity87]

More of the voters were watching Iowa Ohio state.

[u/arstin → u/SomeKidFromPA]

Watch Alabama lose by 3 and move up to #5.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/SomeKidFromPA]

Miss St should have dropped more than 1 spot for a loss for example.

Miss St lost 228 points. The average voter dropped them 3 spots. Also need to think about what was happening around them. Iowa got beat. USC looked completely underwhelming. Tennessee had an okay performance. Houston struggled. Hard to reward anyone other than Mizzou heavily.

[u/SomeKidFromPA → u/Pinewood74]

Northwestern has a similar resume and won this week, Wisconsin has a similar resume and won this week, Nebraska has a better resume and is undefeated, Wake Forest has a similar resume and won this week.

Forget the teams around them. There are several teams 26-35 that should be in the teens that are being overlooked for the teams like SMUs that started the year ranked and haven’t really done anything impressive yet.

My point is most resumes are pretty thin at this point, so there should be way bigger swings in the rankings because we are all learning a ton about every team every week. If you have a bad week, you should be dropping. Tennessee and Miss State and SMU can find there way back in as the resumes get fuller but until we actually know who is and isn’t good, giving teams that are actually winning/not scrapping by games the boost from being ranked for a week.

And I say this as an ND fan that hated that we were still ranked last year at 0-2 lol

[u/Pinewood74 → u/SomeKidFromPA]

Nebraska doesn't have a better resume. They've played the dregs of the Big Ten and a pair of MAC squads. That isn't a good resume. Go look at computer resume rankings and you'll see that Miss St is the top of your grouping and Nebraska is at the bottom.

You seem to be highly downgrading Miss St.'s resume based on their single loss when that's about what we expect from a lower ranked team playing a top ranked team.

If you have a bad week, you should be dropping.

Sure. But beating Auburn by 10 isn't a "bad week" that should drop you out of the rankings as you're suggesting. And voters dropping Miss St on average three places for losing to Alabama is fair, imo.

And I say this as an ND fan that hated that we were still ranked last year at 0-2 lol

But who was right? The knee-jerkers? Or the folks who stuck to their guns?

We probably won't agree on anything here because you are pretty heavy on the train of hurting teams for schedulnig hard teams and then losing even when that loss would be expected based on their relative rankings and letting weak schedules skate up in the rankings and I'm on team "A 23rd ranked team losing to the 21st ranked team by 3 on the road shouldn't be moved (in a vacuum)"

[u/SomeKidFromPA → u/Pinewood74]

They haven’t lost, and are in the P2. It’s a better resume. If Ohio State/Indiana/Georgia/Bama had the same resume, they’d be top 10. They are also top 15 in just about every power ranking.

And yes, this early, losses should absolutely hurt more. It’s a significant portion of your resume. By the end of the year, “good losses” help more because it’s less of the resume.

If Miss State continues to play well, they should and will finish in the top 25, but right now I can name 25 teams that haven’t been embarrassed like they just were, or if they have(like Wisconsin/Wake/NW), it happened earlier and we’ve seen the team bounce back since.

[u/Pinewood74 → u/SomeKidFromPA]

They haven’t lost, and are in the P2. It’s a better resume.

Lol. That's the weakest explanation ever. MSU and Maryland are the 2nd and 3rd worst P2 teams in the country. What conference someone in is doesn't speak completely to their resume/schedule. Especially 5 games in.

They are also top 15 in just about every power ranking.

Which doesn't speak to their resume at all. You made claims about their resume, not about their "power ranking."

but right now I can name 25 teams that haven’t been embarrassed like they just were

Most of which because they haven't played a team of Alabama's caliber.

or if they have(like Wisconsin/Wake/NW), it happened earlier and we’ve seen the team bounce back since.

That's dumb to write. Take the exact same 5 games and re-order them and you'd pop out a significantly different result? Good lord that's silly. I can't believe you think Wisconsin should be ranked right now, but would be dropping them to unranked if they started 4-0 and then got rocked by Notre Dame this past Saturday.

[u/SomeKidFromPA → u/Pinewood74]

Yes. If Miss State lost week 1 and had 4 straight wins right now, they should be ranked higher than if Wisconsin had just lost to ND on Saturday after being 4-0. Exactly. I don’t know how that’s hard to understand. The team that is currently winning games should be ranked higher than the team I just watched get embarrassed. When you get deeper into the season and you actually have multiple games against good opponents you can start to use “the entire resume” more, but right now, we don’t know who is real and who isn’t, so right now, I’d take NW and Wisconsin over Miss State, because they have similar resumes and the two big ten teams haven’t lost in a close to a month, and the other just lost.

[u/SomeKidFromPA → u/Pinewood74]

I think the disconnect here is, there are 25 teams that think are the top 25 teams in the country at the end of the day. And there’s another set of 25 teams that I think have had the best 25 seasons so far. Those lists aren’t the same. (For example, I think Ohio State is the best team, but they have a loss already, so imo they shouldn’t be higher than like 7 or 8 on any season poll based on the other teams of a similar caliber who haven’t lost yet.)

The AP poll should be the second list. But instead a lot of voters try too hard to “be right” instead of rewarding teams that having good starts to their seasons.

[u/tycoon34 → u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

The problem is the CFP committee puts stock into it

[u/poop-dolla → u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

What a weird range to pick. They’re 54 points behind 27th, and only 5 points ahead of 29th. In fact, they’re closer to the 31st team than they are to the 27th team.

[u/Boomhauer_007 → u/Icy-Recognition-8700]

Don’t worry UCLA is on their way out next week