SMQ embraces democracy this morning with this week's proposed BlogPoll ballot, by far the toughest among the closely-examined efforts he's attempted to put together all season. Teams and groups of teams typically fall into a sort of obvious natural order. After Saturday, well, not so much.
So for the first time this season, he relents and opens the ballot to scrutiny ahead of its submission. This is not a willy-nilly forum: opinions are going to vary wildly, but SMQ, like an official reviewing instant replay, requires indisputable evidence to overturn the ranking on the field.
Specifically, he's seeking some guidance on Rutgers: with no blemish, a better resume than Arkansas and/or Notre Dame? West Virginia: sans a marquee win (unless you count Maryland) and bearing one not-horrible defeat, should the Mountaineers move up on the two-loss triumverate SMQ currently sticks directly in front of it? How are we supposed to account for Maryland, anyway? It doesn't seem so great, but the Terps have only lost to WVU and Georgia Tech, and not for about a month now.
As for the two-time losers: are LSU and Oklahoma inflated here relative to Texas, Cal and Auburn only because the transgressions of the former pair are more distant? SMQ doesn't operate that way - when a team loses isn't important. He justified the Tigers because they have one good win (at Tennessee), one solid one (Alabama), nothing approaching an unwarranted close call and, maybe most importantly, two "good" losses, as far as losses go; Oklahoma still is only credited with like one and a half demerits because of the Oregon onside kick thing, but is that enough to justify jumping OU over Texas with the head-to-head in the Longhorns' favor? Same question goes for LSU over Auburn.
Michigan up to one is a re-evaluation of schedule strength relative to Ohio State and not all that notable considering a) it's a razor thin margin and b) they sorta play Saturday.
Not yet, but the reinforcements better get here soon.
Remember, this is only based on games played to date and nothing else. Suggestions consisting of hypothetical reamings of Boise State by any team ranked behind it, or of "OMG Wiscosnin Big Ten=Top Ten!!!" will be ignored. Discourses on conference strength or weakness, detached from specific opponents, will get the commenter nowhere. Don't care who plays running back or what the pass defense is ranked. If you want to argue a team should be moved up or down, that argument has to be based on said team's actual schedule through the first nine or ten games, and its position relative to comparable teams. "I don't think Florida is that good" will not cut it.
This is only a test:
2. Ohio State
3. Southern Cal
7. Notre Dame
12. Boise State
16. West Virginia
17. Georgia Tech
18. Wake Forest
19. Boston College
21. Virginia Tech
Something here is wrong, but what, in this situation, would look right? Tell SMQ below. Dígale.