Top 25... it was tough keeping Rutgers out of my top 5

Because Team B must not have been that good to begin with. No. 4 is what the world thought of them as, but that doesn't reflect their actual performances. Why should Team A get credit for beating an overrated team?

 

That's an oversimplification, though. Sometimes a team falls off due to injuries, but that doesn't mean they weren't a great win when a team beat them. Other times, the impact of losing the game as a highly ranked team has a hangover effect that damages a squad and causes further losses. There's something to be said for the value of winning a game that was a big game at the time, no matter how the rest of that team's year turns out.

I've always thought it stunk to have a "big game" at the end of the year, because by winning it you then damage the value of your own victory in the system. It's like you're being punished for not having had cupcakes late so your better opponents had time to recover in the polls. Of course, that's before Ohio State/Michigan came along and showed us losing games has no effect on your worth.

 

1. In specific instances, I might be able to accept the injury argument.

2. If getting upset sends your season into a tailspin, you weren't that good to begin with. Good teams bounce back from losses.

 

Ohio State and Michigan are done now until the bowl games. Why did these teams decide to play week after week instead of spreading themselves out a bit more? If I'm a coach, barring allowing injuries to fully heal, why would anyone want to go SO long between games?

I think Michigan's No. 2 still for this very reason. USC has Notre Dame in order to make the stronger case for No. 2 and UCLA (game's at UCLA) is still there too.