Aaron — I appreciate that you brought Boyd into your blog.

Some great points here guys…an outstanding article as I am often dismayed by the polls.  I will have an expanded viewpoint on this coming later today as I have spent two very long days researching and rank ordering all the teams with a minimum of a .650 winning percentage by the 12 most important stat categories when evaluating opponents.

I witnessed some very interesting results and numbers.
The first five teams in the poll, based upon their rank order in these categories were significantly better than all the other teams.
In rank order for all 12 categories:
1.  ASU
2.  UCLA
3. Georgia Tech
4. Arizona
5. Virginia
 
The separators were a balance between pitching and hitting, and the ability to manufacture runs, while at the same time hitting for power.  Arbitrary position of strength were awarded to teams who have the ability to come back from a deficit and win, especially late in the game when down by more than 1 run.
I will expand on this later today and appreciate this article for it illuminates a larger issue with the poll system.

BB is silly to say that Boyd is subjective–he has the most objective rankings out there.  His rankings are based on a formula which he has tweaked over the years to better reflect how good a team is.  Teams that rank high in his ISR rankings routinely do well in the postseason–more so than the RPI or the rankings (which are the most subjective).  Aaron Fitt admitted above that right now at least half of his "criteria" for his rankings are based on his view of the teams' potential and how they will finish and not entirely on what has happened so far.  Boyd's rankings are based solely on what has happened.  There is nothing subjective about what Boyd does.  The West Coast teams almost always rank higher in the objective rankings than they do in subjective rankings such as Mr. Fitt's.  It made me laugh that I saw Mr. Fitt speak about a west coast bias that someone would have if they were to rank ASU or UCLA above Virginia–it would probably be more of a lack of an east coast bias.

Remember when Stanford hosted a regional in 2002 with all 4 team (San Joase St., Fullerton, Long Beach St. and Stanford) all being ranked in the top 22 in the polls. 
That, my friends, was a complete joke.  There is a huge East Coast bias.  The Pac Ten puts more players in the Major Leagues, consistently has more premium players drafted, and has to compete week in and week out (even on weekdays) with great teams all littered with future Major Leaguers. 
I wish Baseball America's headquarters were in California or anywhere East of the Mississippi. 

WOW!  I can hardly believe my eyes.  This interview is a case study!  Very interesting how Aaron saw fit to take Boyd on Re SoS.  Hats off to Aaron for doing so… finally. 
I've long suspected the boys at BA have had a 'minor' level of contempt for SoS consideration, and I'm guessing Aaron thought he had a good case with Virginia Vs UCLA/ASU's SoS play, so he'd play his hand against Boyd front and center at this time.  Nicely done!  Should be a regular feature.
Boyd made his case, as always, regarding his 100% objective computer metrics. (everybody starts 'Even Steven', rises, falls accordingly.)  But Virginia being #1 is NOT the best contrast to look at here. (maybe from Aaron's point of view, however, thus the exchange.)  BA is absolutely on track making the subjective call of Virginia being #1, especially after last season and losing practically nobody.  The much better SoS/Ranking contrast is #3 Georgia Tech, instead of Virgina… Vs the undefeated's UCLA/ASU…. and no wonder Aaron did NOT highlight THAT example.  Georgia Tech, 22-3, SoS of 123 (it was #188 SoS last week at #4 in BA's rankings, while BA had undefeated UCLA ranked 9th… despite their undefeated #9 SoS)
[side prediction: UCLA's SoS goes to #1 within a few short weeks via the absolute Murderers Row they hoe here shortly. Win % may be a different story.]
What has been crystal clear for several years is that Baseball America gives SoS little relative weight, as opposed to wins being racked up by Big Boys/Conferences. 
Here's how & why: BA comes out with their Preseason Rankings, based on subjective potential and their outlook.  Fair enough!  What they do not consider is the team's SoS ahead.  Fair enough as well. (but short sighted in discounting as it keeps many a teams falsely elevated for far toooooo long if playing a weak SoS. But the outcome is arguably 'convenient'.) 
But by Aaron's own admission, they OFTEN admit they (Aaron & John) have a near impossible hard time dropping a team in their BA rankings if they keep piling up the weekly winnings, (SoS's be damned.)  Helloooooo!   Anybody connecting the dots here?
So when teams are playing SoS's of 188 (often enough WORSE during NC play) Baseball America will still have up to 15 ACC/SEC teams in their Top 25 because they started these same teams off high, in their minds… and they are piling up wins like nobody else in the country, despite sporting collective annual conference SoS of 15 – 25 during NC play, out of 32 conferences.  Hellooooo!  Talk about subjective and a favorable east coast bias. (totally forgeting for a moment the other tool of utilization, the RPI, which to ACC/SEC teams' credit, have mastered the manipulation of; easier to do in the college dense east, than sparse west; more 'good' Tier Two level teams to play in the east) 
If SoS is so little valued, discounted, then of course it's convenient to point to all the wins and cast dispersions on SoS… as Aaron did here today (in a very above board, noble way I might add, one on one with Boyd Nation… so hats off to Aaron for confronting this issue head-on for once, even if overtly showing his SoS contempt hand.) ;-)  But replace Aaron's references to a Virginia, who can EASILY be defended for being a #1, with Georgia Tech, who has NO business whatsoever being ranked ahead of either UCLA or ASU, for the choice of SoS they have elected to play during NC play, and the results undefeated UCLA & ASU have, to date, with THEIR choice/results of much tougher NC SoS play.  But, nonetheless, Aaron and John value wins over SoS, thus Georgia Tech remains the more elevated, and ACC/SEC continue to dominate upto 60% of the Top 25 teams every year in BA land.  Aaron & John then, sorry to say, cop out, awaiting the EASY route; for teams to stumble (on SoS usually), prior to Tough Choices: dropping a team, despite continued winnings, for other teams playing well against healthy SoS's.  The NCAA selection committee then has a very easy time, pointing to the likes of BA, for their annual choice of awarding 25% of the 64 slots to the 2 conferences… out of 32 confs.  And clinging to the RPI.  One feeds the other.  Add an NCAA selection committee that is near 90% dominated by eastern schools and the bias's get nearly three layers deep. 
But WOW, SoS was dealt with front and center, at the source… here at BA!   Great give and take interview Aaron engaged in here!  Well done.  WOW.  And on a noble basis at that; no side shot, but head on.  Next time however, use the elephant in the room, the #188 GT's. ;-)  GREAT ARTICLE.

Got a number of things to address here, PhxTitan. First: I actually agree with you that Georgia Tech has played a weak schedule, and I completely agree that Tech’s body of work is not as impressive as ASU’s or UCLA’s, or any other team’s in the top 10-15, for that matter. But in this case, Georgia Tech ranked high in the preseason because Georgia Tech is loaded with talent, and the Yellow Jackets have done nothing so far to disprove that starting premise. If you win your games, we’re generally not going to drop you in the rankings. We might jump somebody over you (which we did in this case, moving Arizona State past the Jackets), but all you can do is win the games on your schedule. That said, we do value strong schedules — that’s one reason we cut Rice and Fullerton and East Carolina some slack before dropping them out of the rankings. They challenged themselves, and we reward teams that play challenging schedules — to a point. As I said to Boyd, I think SOS is a valuable tool, but I don’t think Boyd’s SOS formula is the be-all, end-all arbiter of what makes a schedule easy or difficult. That’s all. There is just no way, for instance, that beating Nebraska is a better win than beating East Carolina, just because East Carolina played three games against NC Central. My starting point for this whole discussion was not to defend Virginia as the No. 1 team in the nation — I don’t think that needs any defense, frankly. My starting point was that it’s ridiculous to say UCLA and ASU have played tougher schedules than Virginia, regardless of what the SoS numbers say. Obviously, I would not make the same claim about Georgia Tech’s strength of schedule. Also: Trust me when I tell you that the NCAA gives no thought whatsoever what BA says when filling out the NCAA tournament field. Some examples from last year: We had Gonzaga ranked No. 19 in the nation (which would make it a strong No. 2 seed in a regional) when the field of 64 was announced. The committee had the Bulldogs as a No. 3 seed. We had UC Irvine as the No. 1 team in the country; the committee inexplicably had Irvine as the No. 6 national seed. As it happens, those are both examples where we had West Coast teams rated higher than the committee did. I won’t argue with the point that several people made in this discussion that an East Coast bias exists; I just think it’s unfair to accuse us of having an East Coast bias just because we’re based on the East Coast, when in fact our track record pretty clearly shows that we cover the entire country fairly and in depth. One final note: Arizona State was slow to move up our rankings because, if you recall, Arizona State played a REALLY weak schedule early — much weaker, in fact, than Georgia Tech. The Sun Devils opened with eight straight games against Northern Illinois and Towson; if we valued wins over SoS, as you claim, we would have moved Arizona State up further earlier, because it was unbeaten against weak competition. Or we would have moved Georgia Tech or LSU up over Virginia, which only went 2-1 in the opening weekend at East Carolina while those other teams went undefeated against softer opponents. But we placed value on Virginia going on the road and beating a ranked opponent; winning two of three on the road against a good team was more impressive than, say, sweeping Centenary, so we made Virginia No. 1. What I’m trying to say here is that we place quite a bit of value on strength of schedule, in fact.

Aaron — awesome piece with Boyd.  You two should make it a weekly deal.  I think you both have super valid points.  His math is relatively worthless early in the year, but as the season progresses — he is right on the money. 
I appreciate so much that you are using more of the "eye test" approach.  You can tell good pitching, hitting, fielding from bad.
My only comment is that if your rankings and discussions of teams is so much based on yours and John's visual take on teams — you need to get off the East coast and see some baseball on the left coast.  Frankly, this is much more important for you to do… because you are relying on your senses to judge the teams. 
You guys are doing an AWESOME job overall and I can't wait every week for your podcast.

Aaron,

I wish you would write a story about a team that is having a record breaking season so far like Arizona State and give them credit for what they have done instead of saying “well their schedule is weak” or “they havent played any road series yet”. First of all if you have ever played baseball you would know that it doesnt matter how tough your schedule is winning 24 in a row is simply incredible in college ball today. Second, I know ASU has played primarily home games but in baseball home field advantage is not as great as in other college sports.