Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Lazy.

Indeed, but such things get clicks.  I think everyone here mostly ignores them, maybe a quick look to see who is 15-25.

Why do you say it's lazy?

It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

USC, Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?

It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?

So you disagree with the ones that are new or surprisingly highly ranked, and yet you call it a regurgitation.  That seems contradictory to me.

I've always found Joel Klatt to be fairly thoughtful and conscientious in his takes  I can see disagreeing with his rankings, but I don't doubt he put some effort into them.  I don't think they're "lazy" just because I disagree with some of them.

How are they "lazy" if they're thoughtfully produced?

This is such a weird take.  You can certainly disagree with them, but badgerfan already pointed out several differences from last year's ranking that demonstrate they're not just a complete re-hash from last year.  Some thought went into them, time was spent on them.

Seems pretty lazy to write them off as lazy just because you disagree.

It's just a regurgitation and mashup of last year's rankings.

The usual suspects, with some "outsiders" mixed in.

USC, Miami, Nebraska, Ole Miss and aTm have to show me.

Utah #6? C'mon. Mizzou?

mixed in Nebraska instead of Colorado just to jinx the Huskers

I'm too lazy to agree or disagree.  I THINK such rankings are lazy because I really do THINK they put rather little effort into it, because there simply is not enough information to do much more than take last years rankings and adjust them a bit.  This is why they all look largely the same with a few flips.

I can't really imagine putting a ton of effort into such things because they are largely pointless.  Take ten prominent such rankings and the only differences will be subtle in the top ten, with some guessing down the line after that.  AND, nobody really seems to compare rigorously with their predictions and final rankings to assess whether anyone is any better than anyone else.

Use Clucko to do it.

I disagree, I'm not sure this is true at all.  I think college football people like Joel Klatt probably geek out over these things.  I think they spend a LOT of time on them.  I know that the people on other message boards I frequent like surlyhorns, where lots of folks publish their own Top 25s, spend a ton of time on them.  Why wouldn't a paid professional do the same, regarding a sport he obviously loves?

I think they look "largely the same" because the teams that finish in the Top 25 look largely the same every year.  Last year 17 out of 25 pre-season AP Top 25 finished in the final AP Top 25.  That's almost 70%.

I'm sure they don't spend a lot of time thinking about who definitely won't make it.  We all know that, say, Vanderbilt isn't going to finish in the top 25.  And tons of other schools in the same boat.

And they probably don't spend a lot of time on the top 5-10 either.  We all know Ohio State and Georgia and several other teams are likely to have excellent seasons.

But I suspect they spend a lot of time-- the bulk of their time-- trying to figure out the surprise teams. Either good or bad surprises. That's where I'd spend my time.

But I'm too lazy to bother publishing a Top 25 of my own.