So #21 WVU loses to #15 LSU in a close game.
Okay, that would be expected, no? If the polls are right, any #21 team would lose to a #15 team.
So why does that #21 team, WVU, drop entirely out of the rankings?
Because they rank based on record way more than they rank based on their perception of the team’s strength.
Because preseason rankings are giving way to actual on-the-field performance.
Losses are crucial. That is why so many teams schedule puppies outside their leagues. If you go undefeated, you will get a lot more respect than you probably deserve ,even if you play very weak teams.
Also consider that teams ranked lower than #21 *did not *lose this weekend, and therefore jump up ahead.
Now, why the hell does USC keep winning, and still drop like a stone every week? I figure they have be discounted for the whole next 2 seasons, despite what they do on the field. 
And a big “F U” to Arkansas, for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and letting 'Bama hold on to #1. :mad:
At #21, there isn’t a lot of room to fall. So if there are undefeated teams knocking at the door, they will get the benefit of the doubt from the voters. I think the only thing that would get WVU another look after that game is if they had clearly dominated and got pipped at the end by luck or a lousy call. But they had some costly turnovers and missed a couple of field goals.
What does UCLA have to do to get into the Top 25? They’ve had two consecutive weeks of convincing wins over two Top-25 ranked teams (Houston and Texas).
Which followed two losses - one an incredibly embarrassing loss to K-State. You’re not getting many votes with 2 losses at this point in the season.
QFT
As a Buckeye fan I have never rooted for the Razorbacks so much in my life. 
Because the rankings aren’t and never were internally consistent. If the #1 team plays the #2, and the #2 loses, why should the #2 drop? But it always does.
The voters also don’t see all the games. They look at the scores and are impressed with big wins. If you beat a cupcake team by 40 points, you’re automatically better than a team that wins by a touchdown over a ranked team. They also vote for the usual suspects (i.e., they overlook teams that haven’t won big before.
It’s a silly and illogical system, but no one has come up with a better one.
[Hijack] Why? You’re ranked #2, so if you win out, you’ll be in the NCG regardless. (Because that’s how the human polls work: The losers drop x spots. The winners move up as many vacated spots as there are to fill).
Oh, wait… it’s because you’d rather play Boise St. in the NCG than 'Bama. Gotcha. [/Hijack]
I suspect the voters in the AP poll see many games, but not all. It’s the coaches’ poll that’s a total joke. An FBS coach just doesn’t have enough time to make an informed decision on 24-25 other programs.
Nobody can see all the games because they are on at the same time. So they have to rely on other sources to rate the teams. So it gets a little sloppy.
You may want to have someone introduce you to the VCR.
If you ask them off the record, most coaches will tell you they don’t really vote at all. They hand their ballots to an assistant coach or a secretary in the athletic department and say, “Here, fill this out, I don’t have time.”
NO ONE understands college football rankings.
You may want to have someone introduce you to the 24 hour day.
You want to have someone introduce you to the 7-day week.
Well, it all depends on what you mean by ‘better’. If you think ‘better’ means, more accurately tracks actual team ability then of course people have come up with lots of better ones. [Heck, here’s one: Instead of div I, II & III,chop schools up into way a bunch of 30-team levels, based on ability, with European promotion & relegation.]
But, for the people who actually make decisions (i.e. the NCAA powers), ‘better’ means ‘maximizes ticket and TV revenue for the established traditional football teams, while maximally stroking the egos of donors to those programs’. That means you want a system that (for the latter) doesn’t penalize teams for scheduling lots of ego-stroking cupcake wins, while making every non-cupcake game a critical one, and keeping interest and controversy open as late in the season as possible (including through all bowl games), and also making sure traditional football powers get extra weight. And by those criteria, the current system works pretty well.
Remember, just because a system doesn’t work for you, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work for the people who choose the system. [See also, U.S. Senate, two-party system, etc.]
If you watched 8 hours a day ,for 6 days, you would have the time to see 24 games(assuming 2 hrs a game) They don;t all play teams that are very good, so you are seeing one important team in many games. There is simply not enough time to see all the games.