“Grace & Brand: How the AP Poll Looks Like It Plays Favorites in College Football”
By [Demetrius A Thompson], Special to the Journal

At the heart of every college-football season lies the weekly ritual of the AP Top 25. Since 1936, this poll has served as a barometer of perceived strength, prestige and momentum across the FBS landscape. CollegeVine+3ESPN.com+3SI+3 Each week, sports writers and broadcasters across the country submit their ballots ranking the top 25 teams; a first-place vote carries 25 points, second place 24 points, and so-on to 1 point for 25th place. SI+1

Yet, for as transparent as the process may appear, the poll repeatedly gives the appearance of grace being extended to certain programs—losing “better,” winning “better,” and benefitting from brand value, historical prestige and television-narrative momentum. The clips you referenced—of the final play in the South Carolina Gamecocks vs. Alabama game, a TikTok share of a seemingly deliberate let-up—serve as an emblem of the broader suspicion: that not all wins and losses are treated equally.

What the Poll Says – and Doesn’t

The AP Poll is not a mechanism for playoff qualification. It is a consensus opinion of selected media, and though influential, it does not directly determine postseason match-ups. Sports Betting Dime+1 That means there is room for narrative, legacy and brand to skew perceptions.

When media-voted polls weigh in, semantics matter. A “good loss” often gets framed differently than a “bad loss.” A traditional powerhouse dropping a game may still linger in or near the top 10, while a mid-tier program doing the same can vanish entirely. These distinctions aren’t just anecdotal—they shape public perception, recruiting momentum, and television exposure.

The Case Study: Alabama vs. Miami vs. Virginia

Here’s the scenario you laid out:

• Notre Dame incurs two losses, yet remains high in the rankings and seems to receive the benefit of the doubt regarding the nature of those losses.
• Miami and Virginia (each with one loss, including wins over teams Alabama lost to) appear to be treated less generously.
• The suggestion: there is pre-ranking, or brand-based bias, toward Alabama (a storied program) and comparatively less for the others.

1. Brand & historical prestige
Alabama is among the most decorated programs in college football history, with frequent top rankings in the AP Poll and multiple championships. Wikipedia That kind of brand creates a “halo” effect: voters may unconsciously give more benefit of the doubt when a loss occurs—“it was a quality loss” or “the program still deserves ranking.”
Conversely, a program without that same recent dominance may be penalized more harshly for the same kind of loss.

2. Differential value of losses and wins
Let’s parse the logic:

• Miami beats a team (say, South Carolina?) that Alabama lost to.
• Virginia also beats a team Alabama lost to.
• Yet Miami drops to #10 (despite one loss) while Alabama remains higher (despite two losses).
• The final play clip implies a narrative that Alabama’s loss might have been “allowed” or mitigated, rather than punished.

What this suggests is a two-tier system:

• Tier 1 programs: when they lose, the loss is treated as one of “earned” respect (a “good” loss). When they win, the win is treated as a testament to their continued dominance.
• Tier 2 programs: when they lose, the loss carries heavy weight; when they win, the win may be qualified or discounted (e.g., “they beat a beatable opponent,” or “we don’t yet know how great they are”).

This narrative interpretation aligns with commentary that the poll has “faulty logic and embeds brand bias.” Lawless Republic+1

3. The television/brand effect
You mentioned “they talk about a brand on CBS and they play a role in who they selected.” Indeed, television coverage, marquee programs and “must-see” matchups shape brand narratives. A team that regularly features on national television gets more media exposure—and by extension, more familiarity among voters.
When voters fill ballots weekly, familiarity often equates to perceived credibility.

Supporting Data

• The AP Poll’s point system: first-place vote = 25 pts, second = 24, etc. ESPN.com+1
• The AP Poll’s voter base: roughly 60+ sportswriters/broadcasters covering FBS football; they are selected by the AP to represent various regions. AP News
• The poll is extremely volatile week to week, especially early in the season, because narratives and limited data dominate. Sports Stack Exchange
• Media analysts argue the AP Poll is “broken” in its treatment of losses and wins for elite programs vs. others. Lawless Republic

Argument Summary

1. Pre-ranking and Brand Advantage — Teams like Alabama enter the season with built-in credibility; voters anticipate their success and are predisposed to keep them high unless dropped decisively.
2. Unequal Treatment of Losses/Wins — When a brand program loses, the narrative often frames that loss as “better” (e.g., “they beat a good team,” “it was a one-possession game”) while less-established programs receive harsher treatment.
3. Narrative and Media Exposure — Weekly exposure (TV, social media, highlight plays) shapes voters’ recall and bias. A memorable clip (like the one you referenced) may feed the perception of “special treatment.”
4. Transparency vs. Subjectivity — Although the process is transparent in terms of mechanics, the subjectivity is real: “good” and “bad” losses, strength of schedule, brand value—all are judged by human voters.
5. Implications — For programs like Miami or Virginia, the consequence is that even with one loss and some quality wins, they may still drop because the brand ceiling is lower. Meanwhile for Alabama, two losses might be “ok” because the brand floor is high.

What Needs to Change

If the poll is truly to reflect performance rather than prestige, a few steps could help:

• Greater accountability for voters: Encourage explicit justification of unusual jumps or falls—why did a team go up/down despite similar records?
• Stronger weight on objective metrics: strength of schedule, wins over quality opponents, losses to quality opponents—all could be made more transparent.
• Reduce brand inertia: Acknowledging that historical success should not shield a program from steep drops after poor performance.
• Media literacy for voters: Recognize that highlight plays, brand narratives and viral clips (TikTok, social media) may unduly influence voting.

Conclusion

Your observation—that Alabama gets a grace pass and programs like Miami and Virginia do not—is rooted in real dynamics of college football perception, media exposure and voting behavior. The AP Poll remains one of the most widely cited gauges of national standing. But the treatment of teams with similar records yet different brands reveals how much narrative matters.

# Create a second version of the HTML with the user’s screenshot-derived ranks prefilled # where they were clearly legible (AP left column), and leave early unclear weeks as nulls. # Weeks covered: Preseason → Week 10. prefilled_html = r””” """ with open("/mnt/data/ap-poll-trends-prefilled.html","w",encoding="utf-8") as f: f.write(prefilled_html) "/mnt/data/ap-poll-trends-prefilled.html"