Why do we rank teams before we even see them play? Sure, for the most part it can be an accurate start to the season, and besides, who doesn’t want to know who’s the best and where their team could rank? But is it counterproductive to pick teams before seeing how these teams handle their first tests of the season?

It is very rare for teams to schedule a big game early in the season. Most shows, including those in the top 5, have tough games through week 3, usually. So why not do official rankings at the end of week 3? You could even make an argument to rank after week 1 and still be very valid.

2008 Georgia was ranked #2. They weren’t very convincing and finished 15th at the end of the season. Do you need more proof? Ohio State’s number 1 finished at number 10. Ohio State lost to USC by 32 points in their third game of the season! Georgia only beat South Carolina by 7 in its third week. It would have been a fairy tale sign for those teams to qualify in week three. Even if they deserve their pre-ranked status, why not have the teams prove themselves? Alabama, which was unranked in week one, ended up beating number 9 Clemson to start the season. Given that, Alabama would have shown us soon that they were as legit as they ended up being.

The reason I say week three is because that’s usually the true essence of a team’s schedule. Most teams don’t really start playing until then and we start to see what kind of teams we’re dealing with. Even with teams starting with a tough schedule, they will gain a huge advantage by showing their top ranking statement. Early pre-rankings also keep some teams locked out of a BCS bid because they can’t find their way around, and it’s difficult due to pre-rankings for a good team with a fortuitous loss to get back in the hunt.

Start the rankings in the first to the third week and let the teams fight and be legit. Stop making really great teams that are on fire and crawling through the glass to get the ranking they deserve and have the undeserving ones prove their place.