Ballot Type: Human
Submitted: Nov. 9, 2025, 6:56 p.m.
Overall Rationale: In my view, winning is most important, and head-to-head wins next-most important. There are three main theories of ranking teams: •1. hypothetical "best" rankings where responders make guesses about who would win in hypothetical situations; •2. tiered rankings of teams with equal records, often called "resume" rankings; •3. hybrids of the above where ballots make an effort to combine hypothetical outcomes with on-field results. The vast majority of rankings are use systems 1 or 3. I object to these as being too fantastic and relying too much upon the imaginations of the voters who set teams with poorer records and more losses ahead of teams with better records and fewer losses because they "know" (i.e., have predetermined) that those teams are better. Do I think JMU at 7-1 would beat all of the teams who have two losses that I've ranked below them? I don't know, but I don't view that a relevant question to be asking. They lost fewer games, and have earned the right to be ranked ahead of teams who have lost more. The second line of thinking that deviates from the majority of ballot submissions here is the internal order for undefeated, one-loss, and multiple-loss teams. I differ in my perspective from the majority of ballot submissions in my interpretation of which one-loss or two-loss teams I will list in which order, based upon my perspectives of which conferences and which teams are stronger than others. Head-to-head also matters, which is why some programs are ranked much lower than in other polls as teams who have lost to teams who have lost to teams have to go in the order of who they've lost to if they have the same number of losses. Here I again differ from the norm in viewing conferences as largely being equivalent to each other to a greater degree than most appear to. I functionally treat all of college football like a giant conference. This leads to my greater willingness to rate one- or two-loss teams from the Big XII, the ACC, and yes, even the AAC or MWC, ahead of one- or two-loss teams in the Big Ten or SEC. We don't know if BYU or Georgia Tech are better than Alabama or Georgia, all of whom have the same number of losses but haven’t played each other. So a ballot submitter can make a choice for themselves in which order to put teams with an equal number of losses. Many folks have decided that Alabama and Georgia are superior to Oregon or Texas Tech; I disagree, and am using my ballot to disagree in the one forum where that disagreement can be voiced. The biggest obvious discrepancy between my ballot and the majority this week is the 2-loss ACC* teams. Virginia beat Louisville who beat Miami who beat Notre Dame, so they’re in this order. I’m sure Notre Dame fans are not happy to be so low here, but it’s a consequence of being behind other two-loss teams with head-to-head wins. I'll also say that my preference would be to put the 2-loss SEC teams behind those from the ACC*, but that would probably rankle too many folks and so I'm going against my own beliefs here a bit. Ultimately the choice came down to the realization that Big Ten and Notre Dame fans are more likely to accept (or at least acknowledge the rationale behind) a well-reasoned argument than the chanters. There were over 300 voters in the main poll last week. My ballot was less than 1/300 of these voices. I chose to use my small voice here to advocate for a different interpretation, a different reading, of college football than the one advocated by ESPN and the AP. I maintain that it is important for there to be lots of different voices and perspectives in a poll like this one.
| Rank | Team | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
AP #1, undefeated |
| 2 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
AP #2, undefeated |
| 3 |
Texas A&M Aggies
|
AP #3, undefeated |
| 4 |
Oregon Ducks
|
AP #7. Loss to Indiana |
| 5 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
AP #8. Loss to Arizona State |
| 6 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
AP #4. Loss to Florida State |
| 7 |
BYU Cougars
|
AP #12. Loss to Texas Tech |
| 8 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
AP #5. Loss to Alabama |
| 9 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
AP #6. Loss to Alabama |
| 10 |
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
|
AP #14. Loss to NC State |
| 11 |
James Madison Dukes
|
AP #24. Loss to Lousiville |
| 12 |
North Texas Mean Green
|
AP #unranked. Loss to USF |
| 13 |
Utah Utes
|
AP #15. Loss to Texas Tech and BYU |
| 14 |
Texas Longhorns
|
AP #10. Loss to Ohio State and Florida |
| 15 |
Vanderbilt Commodores
|
AP #13. Loss to Alabama and Texas |
| 16 |
Oklahoma Sooners
|
AP #11. Loss to Texas and Ole Miss |
| 17 |
Virginia Cavaliers
|
AP #20. Loss to NC State and Wake Forest |
| 18 |
Louisville Cardinals
|
AP #19. Loss to Virginia and Berkeley |
| 19 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
AP #16. Loss to Louisville and SMU |
| 20 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
AP #9. Loss to Texas A&M and Miami |
| 21 |
USC Trojans
|
AP #17. Loss to Illinois and Notre Dame |
| 22 |
Michigan Wolverines
|
AP #18. Loss to USC and Oklahoma |
| 23 |
Cincinnati Bearcats
|
AP #22. Loss to TCU and Utah |
| 24 |
Tulane Green Wave
|
AP #unranked. Loss to Ole Miss and UAB |
| 25 |
USF Bulls
|
AP #25. Loss to Miami and Memphis |
Teams Ranked:
| Rank | Team | Unusualness |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Ohio State Buckeyes
|
0.00 |
| 2 |
Indiana Hoosiers
|
0.00 |
| 3 |
Texas A&M Aggies
|
0.00 |
| 4 |
Oregon Ducks
|
0.55 |
| 5 |
Texas Tech Red Raiders
|
0.11 |
| 6 |
Alabama Crimson Tide
|
-0.42 |
| 7 |
BYU Cougars
|
0.74 |
| 8 |
Georgia Bulldogs
|
-1.16 |
| 9 |
Ole Miss Rebels
|
-0.33 |
| 10 |
Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets
|
0.22 |
| 11 |
James Madison Dukes
|
2.73 |
| 12 |
North Texas Mean Green
|
2.54 |
| 13 |
Utah Utes
|
0.00 |
| 14 |
Texas Longhorns
|
0.00 |
| 15 |
Vanderbilt Commodores
|
0.00 |
| 16 |
Oklahoma Sooners
|
-0.10 |
| 17 |
Virginia Cavaliers
|
0.19 |
| 18 |
Louisville Cardinals
|
0.00 |
| 19 |
Miami Hurricanes
|
-0.26 |
| 20 |
Notre Dame Fighting Irish
|
-2.19 |
| 21 |
USC Trojans
|
-0.75 |
| 22 |
Michigan Wolverines
|
-0.50 |
| 23 |
Cincinnati Bearcats
|
0.00 |
| 24 |
Tulane Green Wave
|
0.00 |
| 25 |
USF Bulls
|
0.00 |