The problem with any personal ranking system is determining criteria. Do you:
- Rank them based on how they have performed and looked at "their best"?
- Rank based on accomplishments to date?
- Hypothetical matchup on a neutral field?
- How you think they will finish?
- How good they will be when the live up to their potential?
- What is the cumulative talent that they on the field?
I think that people use all of these, and all are flawed to a degree if used exclusively or if too much emphasis is placed on one over the others.
Certainly, a team at their best has shown you something. Appalachian State showed us their best, but how often will they play at that level?
USF has probably accomplished as much to date as anyone, but when we get to hypothetical matchups, almost no one outside of the Tampa metro area would pick them over USC, LSU or OSU. Accomplishment ranking means more later in the season, when teams have more games under their belts. What do you do in the first few weeks? Say that OSU is "better" than USC because of the margins against Washington? I'm not sure I'd buy that logic.
Of course, hypothetical matchups are just that. Hypothetically, Miami beats Ohio State by three touchdowns in the Fiesta Bowl in some people's eyes. Imagining a matchup is just a guess. USF might just beat one of the top 3-4 teams. They also might lose by four scores.
The least legitimate criteria I think is predicting how teams will finish. That's not a ranking, that's a prognostication. "Oh, we'll rank WVU fourth because they have an easy schedule and will probably win out." Hello??? That makes ZERO sense. People still do it, though. We can only hope those people write blog polls and aren't actual Harris voters.
The potential argument is pretty interesting. Some teams never reach their potential, while others peak early. I would argue that the 2002 Ohio State team deserved (and got) a lot of potential votes. The close wins over questionable teams belied the fact that the Buckeyes were loaded with talent, and could play up (or down) to any opponent.
Potential is also related to talent, or is at least a pretty similar argument. A good example of teams deserving loads of talent points would be 2005 USC and 2005 Texas. The same thing goes or 2006 Ohio State. All of those teams played up to their potential, and the talent levels were ridiculous.
Of course, instead of a thoughtful evaluation of a team's merits, what we have is a "win-and-advance" system where you start with a preseason ranking and move up as you win and others lose, occasionally passing up a team on those lucky weekends where you have a statement win and they have a lackluster one, or better yet, you wound up on ABC at 3:30 and they wound up on the B10 network.
Back to the topic at hand, where should Ohio State be? I can see anything between #1 and #3 for now, because from what I have seen, the Bucks are more talented than Cal, and have a defense that I think would keep a game with USC or LSU tight. Between USC, LSU and OSU, you could put them in any random order and make a decent case for it. We are slightly lacking in the accomplishments department, so I can see not being #1. Our current #4 ranking is merely an artifact of where we started preseason and nothing more.
