Nebraska beat KU.
OU pasted both NU and KU.
Tech rolled against KU, and got taken to OT against NU.
Exactly what metric are you using to determine Kansas is a better win for either Tech or Oklahoma? Preseason ranking?

/begin sacrasm/ Texas Tech???????? You can't be serious!!!!1!!! How many past MNC do they have? When's the last time they won a conference championship? They weren't even in your top ten to start the year. They barely beat Texas on a lucky catch!!!!! /end sacrasm/
=)

your maryland entry is wrong for the losses. they lost to mtsu (where as you have wf). this has to be the worst loss, no? also, they beat clemson, which should register on the wins i would think (since it does for bama...) maybe it's just cuz they are 25

Albino...looking at the whole chart, it seems the Doc does take into account MoV or "style points" when ranking victories, so, for Tech, I have to agree with the Doc beating KU by 42 on the road is more impressive than surviving in OT at home against Nebraska.
For OU, I have no explanation for why beating KU by 14 at home is more impressive than what the Sooners did to Huskers (e.g., effectively win the game in the first 6 minutes and spent the last 90% of the contest in cruise control), but I am not sure it would affect OU's overall ranking.

this poll exhibits the same fundamental, incontrovertible failure of most proposed cfb playoff plans: you've made it okay to lose. it doesn't matter if a team has better "quality wins" if they've lost. Losing is the first and most important metric -- one thing the bcs seems to get. The alternative obscures the whole point of playing the game, which is to beat the other guys before the clock expires. if you can't, don't argue about "quality wins," or "moral victories," or that somehow the rest of your wins excuse the fact that you didn't. that's a betrayal of the sport i love. maybe this is why the playoff/anti-playoff camps will never see eye-to-eye.

Right, Justin, the Maryland entry is wrong. I'm not sure how Wake ended up in the loss column. I'll make that correction before I submit my final ballot. The MTSU loss might move UConn up.
Re: Kansas over Nebraska, this is basically a holdover from recent weeks that I just overlooked. I don't see a major difference in KU and Neb (Nebraska would be higher if I ranked that far down, because of the head to head win, but itsn't necessarily much better of a win), and switching them for Oklahoma and Tech wouldn't change either team's circumstances. With the teams in blue, I'm looking for quantity as much as quality.

Woolf: Would you have put Hawaii #1 last year? I think Georgia amply demonstrated why you would be wrong there.
I'd much rather have a team that's 3-1 against top 12 teams (with all four games in consecutive weeks, no less) and destroying anyone else they play than one that's 1-0 against the top 20 and has had several close calls against lesser competition. If Texas or Florida played Alabama ten times, I doubt Alabama even wins three.
I also think that encouraging teams to get wimpy schedules so they have a better chance of going unbeaten cheapens the regular season more than allowing a team that plays a bunch of very tough games and loses one to get back in the discussion would.

While Florida's 2nd through 5th Best win might be better than Alabama's, in my mind victories over teams ranked between 15 and say 50 aren't all that different this year. The marginal difference between these slate of opponents does not make up the difference in one team failing to take care of business against an inferior opponent.
The only basis to me in ranking Florida over Alabama is the absolute bludgeoning they have put on people. But the opposite side of the coin is, Florida has also lost the only close game they were in.
I'd swap Florida and Bama but keep Texas as number 2.
As for the rest of the poll... Trying to sort out teams below 10 does not seem like fun, so I will not quibble with any of those picks.

I dont understand the ranking of some of the losses. Florida St lost to BC @ home, by a bigger MOV, to a lower ranked team than the loss to GT, but GT is the worst loss? It seems BC would have to be worse than GT. Looking again, WF should be worse than both those, for the same reasons.
FSU's losses should be WF, BC, GT from worst to best.

spartan dan: i didn't say loses shold be the only metric, i said they should be the most important metric. i'm not arguing against using a strength of schedule/best win comparison to rank teams -- i am saying that at the top of those rankings, you can't devalue losses. i think this iteration of the blogpoll does just that.
"if texas or florida played alabama ten times, i doubt alabama even wins three." yes, well, is we decided the mythical national championship by supposition, usc would never lose. alabama will play florida once, just as texas has played texas tech. college football: your de facto playoff, in action, every week.

It's different and I like it.
I REALLY like that you don't give Ball State and BYU top 10 spots just for not losing. That's the kind of thing that irks me the most about media/coaches polls.
Lastly, kinda funny to see Georgia and OSU at those fringe top 10 spots and angling for Capital One Bowl births after all the preseason buzz. Kinda funny how wrong everyone (me included) can be.

spartan dan, re: scheduling wimps: ah, the "KSU fallacy." so long as SOS plays a role, there is market incentive beyond gate returns favoring tough schedules. you can't assess a schedule anyway until its over (hi, clemson, georgia, lsu...) i'm all for conference restructuring, including mandatory title games, which would enforce general scheduling parity, but that's another soapbox.
some some ground rules of sensibility apply, including relative conference strength. the system tries to self-correct. the polls look right to me: Ala. and TTech are 1 & 2 -- given the sec west is down, give the nod to tech. florida follows, since they lost to ole miss and ala. didn't (only florida may change my mind). as for the rest, there's football yet to play.

Woolf: I don't think any unbeaten should be left out of the discussion, simply because no one has yet proven they're better. But that's not the system we have. And I think it's very possible for a one-loss team to be more deserving than a no-loss team.
Avoiding losses is important. But so is proving that you can beat good teams. Texas has done the latter, Alabama hasn't really. I can see arguments either way, but I don't think putting Texas ahead of Bama is at all crazy.
(Moot point, in the end; if Alabama beats Florida in the SEC title game that's a big enough win that Texas can't make up for the loss, and if Alabama loses they won't have anywhere near the quality wins that Texas has.)

Well, as an Alabama fan (sob), I really can't dispute your logic.....I don't like it, but I certainly can't refute it. The solace is that even if we were ranked 4th in the BCS, we'd still essentially control our own destiny: you can't hype UF as the Greatest Team Ever To Play, then not reward Bama with a slot in the Big Game (should they win the SEC, of course)

Dan: Possible for a one loss to be more deserving, perhaps. No so often, in my opinion -- otherwise, we're (again) making losses okay, and that's not how I want my college football season to feel. And yeah, it is a moot point: Alabama gets to beat Florida, or not (though if they do, some will therefore accuse Florida of not being as good a team as they thought, and I'll pull out my hair.)
Can we agree that had Florida lost to Ole Miss LAST week, no one would dream of moving them up so high? If you're weighing these ranking on the merits of a whole season, how does the alternative make any sense?

I prefer to think that rather than having a weak schedule, Alabama so demoralizes the teams they beat that once great teams like Clemson, Georgia, LSU, etc. see no more point in playing the game and thus lay down before future competition. That's my completely non-homer take on it. HT to the BCS for picking up on that.

i do not understand why usc is ranked 6th. you look across that sheet and see the sos, mov, teams played, all that. for anyone who says usc has not played quality opponents, they have the 3rd hardest sos of the top 6! their mov is 2nd only to florida! usc played 3 bad quarters this year. 1st half of oregon state game, and 1st quarter of the stanford game. if you are giving ou's offense so much credit, you have to give usc's defense the same.
top 5 right now,
1.florida
2.usc
3.ttech
4.texas
5.ou
6.bama

In regards to the whole Alabama/Florida debate...we'll see soon enough which team is better, but comparing Alabama to the likes of Ball St. and Hawaii (or even Utah) is unfair. Sure, lots of Bama's wins turned out to be less than impressive, but rolling through the SEC undefeated means 100 times more than doing it in the WAC or MAC.
Florida looks deadly and their "quality wins" deserve a ton of respect, but you have to balance that out with the fact that they got beat by OLE MISS and FREAKING HOUSTON NUTT at HOME! To me, that is alot worse than only beating underachieving teams by a couple touchdowns. You have to take schedule and "style points" into account, but avoiding losses should be the priority. [Herm Edwards/] Hello! You play the game to win! [/Herm Edwards].
Florida is still in the national title picture and they deserve to be. They may well beat Alabama in the SEC title game. But right now, I think the Tide have to be ranked ahead of the Gators, 'Horns, Sooners, Trojans, et. al.

Woolf owns you puds. No wonder you losers are always screaming for a playoff. You wanna be able to write off losses as statistical aberrations, rather than, you know, being accountable for them. You're like frat guys who go on a coke and tequila bender and end up sleeping with the fat chick, but don't want anyone to bring it up because "Dude, I was totally messed up. I can have ANY chick I want, brah." Uh huh.
Roll Tide motherf*ckers.

instead of looking at sagarin's sos, look at his preferred system the sagarin predictor. you know, the one that can actually be used to predict which team will win a given game, including home field advantage.
florida is #1, while usc is barely behind at #2. this system predicts that oklahoma might be favored to win a game at home against texas tech (and that texas is the 3rd best team in the country, i think). obviously, it is not perfect, but i like to follow it as an estimate (adjusted by reality and perceptions, such as the knowledge that fsu had starters suspended made them much more likely to lose against boston college.
yes, i am an avid college football fan. i prefer the current system. the regular season and every game has so much more meaning than if a tournament was held at the end of the season. the tournament/super bowl does not show who is the best team. it just provides a tournament winner.

Instead of looking at Sagarin's SoS, look at his preferred system the Sagarin predictor. You know, the one that can actually be used to predict which team will win a given game, including Home Field advantage.
Florida is #1, while USC is barely behind at #2. This system predicts that Oklahoma might be favored to win a game at Home against Texas Tech (and that Texas is the 3rd best team in the country, I think). Obviously, it is not perfect, but I like to follow it as an estimate (adjusted by reality and perceptions, such as the knowledge that FSU had starters suspended made them much more likely to lose against Boston College.
Yes, I am an avid college football fan. I prefer the current system. The regular season and every game has so much more meaning than if a tournament was held at the end of the season. The tournament/super bowl does not show who is the best team. It just provides a tournament winner.
However, if you wanted a slightly different feel (before 2015) that might have a chance:
"Classic Bowl + 1" - The fools last year insisted on a 4-team playoff in the Bowls, despite the knowledge that Pac-10 and Big 10 (and others) would reject this. Instead, go with the Classic Bowls. ACC plays in the Orange Bowl. SEC champion plays in the Sugar Bowl. PAC-10 plays the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl. After those games are played (assuring some good out of conference games) run the numbers and determine the top 2 teams. Take those teams and send them to the Championship about a week later. This could work with the current contracts, I believe. It would only add a single game for 2 teams (not much extra wear and tear) and would not last any longer than the current season (allowing players to focus on their studies is the concern of a playoff, I think).
This would then help people to continue to care about random games (California played Tennessee, so I care about how California does even thought I am a Florida fan). It would even make the other bowls MORE important, since each one could have an effect on the final rankings. Now THAT sounds exciting. Imagine how many games you might follow (higher ratings = good for leagues and TV) and how much you would discuss the system (especially if you don't like it?).
Personally, I would allow Sagarin to use his Rankings (combination of ELO-Chess and Predictor) or Predictor rather than the ELO-Chess that is forced upon him. Winning a game by 30 or 50 points is a more convincing victory than winning by 1. And, yes, Home Field advantage can make a difference in college football.

1.florida
2.t tech
3.ou
4.tex
5.usc
6.alabama

I remember a 1993 Gene Stalling's Tide team that got no respect...check out the national champions 1994 that didn't have a chance against Miami ranked number one...Tide entered that season unranked too...

1. Texas Tech
2. Alabama
3. Texas
4. Florida
5. Oklahoma
6. USC