This is a very simple concept. Notwithstanding Stanford's loss to Utah, they are a very talented and physical team, just as they proved last night. In fact, did that performance last night not vindicate keeping Stanford so highly ranked?
And Clemson looked like a juggernaut leading up to the FSU game, dominating lesser teams, and beating a then-healthy UGA team on the road. Also, at the time Clemson had a senior (at least on the bubble Heisman candidate) leading a dynamic offense. They looked like a **** good football team
Step back from the orange and green circle jerk for a moment and put yourself in the position of a pollster. What would you do? Would you automatically drop any team that loses a game behind all undefeated teams? Wouldn't you need to consider how that team has performed otherwise?
It's not rocket science, and it's not any imaginary bias that posters on here always fall back on. If anything, there's an inherent bias against west coast schools, bc many of the posters do not stay up and watch those teams play. The pollsters do their best based on the information they have - how teams perform throughout the season (e.g. do they dominate lesser opponents or squeak by), strength of schedule, the previous week's rankings play a role, etc...
Looking back, the pollsters were absolutely correct to move Baylor and Stanford ahead of us.
