The difference between ESPN and the other networks/sites is that Connelly has a mathematical formula made up of every reasonably calculable metric, backdated several decades, and expressly labeled as a predictive model that should not be used to rank teams based on accomplishment, but to rate them by reasonably expected projected results. On the other hand, Joel Klatt, Danny Kanell, and Nicole Auerbach craft rage bait polls based on vibes and surface-level win/loss records and use them to push bad faith narratives. There’s nothing stopping anyone from these other sites from creating a metric like SP+ or FPI, but they’d gain nothing because they don’t want to do the work and it would yield the same ratings.