Kentucky won in College Station and West Virginia went 3-0 by knocking off No. 25 Virginia 38-27, and both landed in “others receiving votes” instead of the Top 25. One camp says the poll is a reputation contest run by people who watched highlights. The other says three weeks in, résumés are thin and voters are right to make you prove it twice.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentIf you think the poll will "self-correct," explain how you square that with 2022 UTSA, who went 7-0, beat ranked opponents, and peaked at 23rd before dropping out because losses elsewhere downgraded their wins retroactively. The correction never came. They finished unranked. I'll wait.
The AP poll stopped being about football performance the day they kept ranking teams with three losses over undefeated mid-majors. It is a brand recognition contest with a spreadsheet attached. Kentucky beats Texas A&M in College Station — road win, ranked opponent, no asterisks — and they get "others receiving votes." Tell me with a straight face that is a merit system.
"I don't have time to type all that out" is the internet's way of saying "I started a sentence I cannot finish." Either make the argument or concede the point. We have time. This thread has been going for a day.
To be fair, three weeks in, nobody's résumé is bulletproof. Virginia was 25th but they hadn't exactly lit the world on fire either. I don't think it's outrageous to want another data point before you hand someone a ranking.
Beat a ranked team on the road. Get zero ranking. Cover a ranked team on the road loss. Get a ten-paragraph feature. The incentives are completely backwards and then we wonder why small programs can't break through.
Hot take incoming — the poll is actually fine and people only complain about it when their team gets snubbed. When Kentucky was comfortably in the top fifteen nobody on that fan base was writing think pieces about voter integrity.
I switched from defending the poll to thinking it's broken about halfway through this thread, specifically because nobody defending it has been able to say what evidence would actually change a voter's mind. If the standard is permanently "not enough data," that's not a standard, that's a preference dressed up as rigor.
I am a 22-year-old Kentucky fan who has watched this program fight for respect my entire sentient football life. You calling my outrage "impatience" is something only a fan of an already-respected program would say. Easy to preach patience when your team starts ranked every year by default.
Someone said the poll self-corrects and then someone else dropped the UTSA example and yeah, that second person won that exchange. I don't see a rebuttal coming. The correction only happens when it's convenient for the narrative.
West Virginia going 3-0 against a schedule that includes a top-25 team and they're on the outside looking in. I went to WVU. We are so used to this. We could go undefeated through week six and voters would still say "let's wait and see." Wait and see what, exactly?
The 3-0 record with a top-25 scalp IS the heavier competition. That's the exact argument that goes in circles forever with people who have already decided who the real programs are.
That's actually the right question and the answer is yes, there is research suggesting early poll placement creates a feedback loop with strength of schedule perception. Teams that start ranked get harder opponents who want the resume boost, which inflates their SOS, which keeps them ranked. Teams that start outside have to work uphill. The system compounds itself.
The real joke is that voters are disproportionately from power conference markets. An AP voter in Columbus or Tuscaloosa is not losing sleep over West Virginia's body of work. The geography of the media determines the geography of the rankings. Always has.
Both teams deserve votes but I also think people underestimate how much genuine uncertainty there is early in the season. Voters aren't being lazy — they're being appropriately cautious with a limited sample. The outrage feels more like impatience than injustice.
The person saying voters are being "appropriately cautious" — cautious on behalf of whom, exactly? The teams that already have rankings they haven't earned yet this season? Caution is not neutral. Caution protects incumbents.
The person above saying "wait for another data point" — okay, so what data point specifically would satisfy you? Because that question never gets a clean answer and that's the whole problem. The goalposts are vibes, not yards.
What I want to know — and nobody in this thread has answered it yet — is whether there is any documented correlation between early-season poll placement and final playoff positioning that controls for actual win-loss record. Because if early rankings don't affect outcomes, this argument is mostly emotional. And if they do affect outcomes, then early snubs are genuinely consequential. Which is it?
West Virginia went 3-0 but let's be honest about who they played before Virginia. Schedule context exists. I'm not saying they don't deserve votes, I'm saying voters aren't wrong to want to see them do it against heavier competition first.
My dad played at Kentucky in the eighties and he called me after that A&M game literally shaking he was so excited. Then we checked the poll together and I watched something go out of his eyes. That's the moment I decided the AP poll is genuinely broken.
This is a confidently stated thing that sounds true but I'd want to actually see the voter list and their institutional affiliations before I repeated it at a bar.
Bottom line: if beating a ranked team on the road in week three doesn't move you into the poll, someone needs to publish exactly what does. Not vibes. Specific, public criteria. Until then the AP poll is a reputation contest wearing a clipboard.
I've been a sports writer for eleven years, covered three different conferences, and I can tell you most voters cast their ballots on Friday morning between two other deadlines. They are not rewatching tape. They are going off brand recognition and last week's result and that is the ceiling of this system.
Twenty years ago I voted in a regional coaches poll, not the AP, but the conversations were the same. We talked about who "felt" like a top-25 team. I am not proud of that framing in retrospect.
I coached high school ball for twenty years so take this for what it's worth — ranking systems that prioritize historical prestige over current performance teach kids exactly the wrong lesson about meritocracy. We tell student-athletes the field is level. The poll says otherwise every single September.
Okay the comment about the dad is sweet but sentiment is not analysis. The poll will self-correct. It always does. Give it two more weeks.
Okay but Virginia at 25 was not exactly a monster. Kentucky beating them wouldn't have felt as big if Virginia hadn't been ranked. At some point we're all arguing about the validity of a ranking by using that ranking as evidence. It's turtles all the way down.
The UTSA thing is actually a little more complicated because of how the committee handled strength of schedule that year but I don't have time to type all that out right now
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments
Would you tell your closest friends exactly how much money you make?
108 comments