LogFAQs > #928404851

The number of undefeated teams is low enough now that there's room for all of them in the top 25 without having to forgo the obvious 1-loss inclusions.

Will they all get in? Doubtful. Voters still put too much emphasis on preseason expectations, so teams with weird losses get excused. At this point in the season, I feel like you shouldn't be ranked ahead of a team that beat you--there are enough teams still undefeated or with losses only to undefeated teams, or even with losses only to those teams, to discredit teams with losses to scrubs.

This philosophy discredits most of the Pac-12, however. Washington looks like they deserve their ranking, but they lost to Cal, who lost to Arizona State, who also looks like they ought to be ranked but they lost to Colorado, who lost to both Arizona and Air Force, the former of which lost to Hawaii, which, uh...lost to Washington. Huh. Didn't even realize that yesterday's Arizona > Colorado result closed a loss circle. USC and Utah are both out via a simple triangle with BYU.

Fun fact, though: UNC is 3-3, losing games by 6 points, 3 points, and 1 point. All three of the teams that beat them are still undefeated. In my mind, this is as good a reason as any to not only give Wake Forest (the 6-point win) the benefit of the doubt (I have them 14th in my methodology), but also to not worry about conference and say that Appalachian State deserves to be in the conversation for the Group of 5 bid (at least for now; an undefeated Boise State, SMU, or Memphis, or even a 1-loss Tulane, easily beats them).
---

Also known as Cyberchao X.