Let me preface this by saying that I am sitting in a sports bar in Chicago watching NFL games and waiting for my flight back to California after going to the Stanford-Notre Dame game yesterday. So take anything I say with, uh, a grain of salt.

So as usual, I have many quips. I wanted to write about the experience of going to a game at Notre Dame. How, despite the punishment the Irish were taking, the fans remained in the stadium until the bitter end (hint, hint Stanford fans). Maybe it’s the lack of other things to do in South Bend, Ind.

That was going to be my column… until I saw the new rankings this morning. Few things raise my blood pressure like the sheer incompetence of poll voters. I really think that every voter should have to thoroughly, publicly explain the rationale they use in deciding which teams are better than others.

Let me start with Arkansas. Arkansas was ranked No. 10 last week. This week they lost 24-20 to No. 1 Alabama. Arkansas spent most of the game leading, and if it were not for a bounce here or there, the Razorbacks easily could have won the game against Alabama, who hasn’t lost a game in recent memory.

So what is Arkansas ranked this week? No. 15. I want somebody somewhere to explain to me what in that game made them think that Arkansas is a worse team this week than it was last week. I’m not sure any argument would convince me, but I would love to hear someone try.

Then there is Texas. After losing by three touchdowns at home to UCLA (the same UCLA team that Stanford undressed 35-0 in Los Angeles), the Longhorns remained ranked, 16th in the coaches’ poll and 21st in the Associated Press poll.

If it didn’t say Texas across their uniforms, would the Longhorns still be ranked this week? If it was, say, Texas Christian, would they be ranked? Has Texas done anything to warrant a ranking this season other than beat three decidedly mediocre teams? Do people really think they are one of the 25 best teams in the country? Really?

It would be one thing if they were just numbers, but they aren’t. The coaches’ poll is factored in the BCS formula that decides who plays in the national championship game and who is eligible for BCS games. (And am I the only who has noticed that the coaches’ poll consistently undervalues Pac-10 teams?)

Oregon or Stanford could win out, be decidedly better than their opponents, and still not get a chance to move up in the polls. Pollsters are consistently reluctant to have teams leapfrog undefeated teams– so boy, is it nice to be Alabama and Ohio State, ranked No. 1 and No. 2 in the preseason polls.

Then there is the part in which fans get irrationally obsessed with where their team is ranked. It seems like it’s a rite of passage for many fans to check the new rankings every Sunday morning, and then argue with friends about how it is BS that X team is ranked too high or too low. I’ll admit, I too have fallen victim to this syndrome.

But in reality, rankings are subjective numbers given out by a bunch of so-called pundits who probably don’t spend enough time thinking about the rankings and their impact. This is not to say that there aren’t any responsible voters, but I would argue that there are likely many more irresponsible ones, and that is unfortunate.

Normally, when I write a critical column, I like to give a potential solution to the problem at the end. In this case, however, that is difficult. Everyone loves rankings. People need ways to compare teams and quantify them. It’s human nature. Rankings have to stay, I think, but going back to what I said earlier– how about we get some explanations from the voters? Transparency is a good thing.

Daniel Bohm did not complain about how Stanford’s back in the top 10. Try to unravel his biases at [email protected].