Just thought you should know that we can demonstrate, mathematically, that there is little observable difference between teams in the top 25...er...top 32...er....top 15.
If the top 32 teams played .500 teams for 34 games, this would be their expected record (according to Ken Pomeroy's preseason numbers) :
|Rank||Team||Wins per 34|
Losses per 34
|15||Nevada Las Vegas||29||5|
True, Texas A&M would very likely lose to Kentucky (giving Pomeroy's preseason ratings the benefit of the doubt here), but over the course of a season, there is little observable difference between the two (at least in terms of wins and losses). But given college games usually deviate from 10 to 12 points from the predicted point margin, it is even true that over the course of time, there is little observable difference between the 25th and 1st teams -- even to algorithmic ranking systems.
I say all this not to oppose ranking -- I love ranking teams and players. It's what I do. But to get up in a tizzy about who is #1 and who is #5 in rankings, especially pollster rankings, is honestly pointless (and honestly unknowable). Furthermore, as you get further and further from #1, teams become more and more close in skill level -- i.e. given accuracy of ratings, the difference between UK and OSU is significantly greater than the difference between UT and TA&M (a consequence proven by the central limit theorem).
So next time you want to bicker about the pollsters, take a step back and say: "The difference between team #4 and team #10 is actually quite small," over and over.