tschu Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I think we're overrated slightly. 14th or 15th seems about right, at the moment. Quote Link to comment
GM_Tood Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Out of the teams ranked below us..I would favor us in all except South Carolina, FSU, and Oregon. So #12-13 would seem right? Oh, and I liked how the BTN guys were stating that Illinois is the 2nd best team in the Conference....errr 1 Oklahoma (50) 2-0 1463 2 Alabama (4) 3-0 1402 3 LSU (5) 3-0 1373 4 Boise State 2-0 1212 5 Stanford 3-0 1208 6 Oklahoma State 3-0 1126 7 Wisconsin 3-0 1121 8 Texas A&M 2-0 1033 9 Nebraska 3-0 966 10 South Carolina 3-0 876 11 Virginia Tech 3-0 852 12 Arkansas 3-0 851 13 Oregon 2-1 804 14 Florida State 2-1 801 15 Florida 3-0 670 16 West Virginia 3-0 529 17 South Florida 3-0 485 18 Texas 3-0 464 19 Baylor 2-0 391 20 TCU 2-1 310 21 Michigan 3-0 243 22 Clemson 3-0 181 23 Michigan State 2-1 119 24 Georgia Tech 3-0 118 25 North Carolina 3-0 99 Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes, we're overrated. I have no problem saying it. We have not played football deserving of a team ranked in the Top 10. That said, if you look across the entire Top 25, how many teams truly deserve to be where they are ? OU, LSU and Alabama are some of the few teams who I think are right where they should be. You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year. Quote Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Don't really care if we deserve our ranking or not. Its W's and L's that count. T_O_B G>B>R Quote Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes, we're overrated. I have no problem saying it. We have not played football deserving of a team ranked in the Top 10. That said, if you look across the entire Top 25, how many teams truly deserve to be where they are ? OU, LSU and Alabama are some of the few teams who I think are right where they should be. You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year. Good job putting it in the proper perspective knappic. So, the more appropriate questions are; who that is ranked behind us is more deserving of being ranked ahead of us and is there anybody in the top 8 that we should be ahead of? It really is the better way to look at it. 1 Quote Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Out of the teams ranked below us..I would favor us in all except South Carolina, FSU, and Oregon. So #12-13 would seem right? Oh, and I liked how the BTN guys were stating that Illinois is the 2nd best team in the Conference....errr 1 Oklahoma (50) 2-0 1463 2 Alabama (4) 3-0 1402 3 LSU (5) 3-0 1373 4 Boise State 2-0 1212 5 Stanford 3-0 1208 6 Oklahoma State 3-0 1126 7 Wisconsin 3-0 1121 8 Texas A&M 2-0 1033 9 Nebraska 3-0 966 10 South Carolina 3-0 876 11 Virginia Tech 3-0 852 12 Arkansas 3-0 851 13 Oregon 2-1 804 14 Florida State 2-1 801 15 Florida 3-0 670 16 West Virginia 3-0 529 17 South Florida 3-0 485 18 Texas 3-0 464 19 Baylor 2-0 391 20 TCU 2-1 310 21 Michigan 3-0 243 22 Clemson 3-0 181 23 Michigan State 2-1 119 24 Georgia Tech 3-0 118 25 North Carolina 3-0 99 I'll give you SC, FSU, & Oregon (not that I necessarily agree) but what about Boise State, Stanford, Okla State, and Tex A&M? Maybe we should be #8..... Quote Link to comment
yurmomsaho Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes most definitely Quote Link to comment
bournehusker Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Of course we are over ranked but I say who cares til you get beat. Quote Link to comment
deedsker Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Of course we are over ranked but I say who cares til you get beat. yep Quote Link to comment
HUSKER 37 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Out of the teams ranked below us..I would favor us in all except South Carolina, FSU, and Oregon. So #12-13 would seem right? Oh, and I liked how the BTN guys were stating that Illinois is the 2nd best team in the Conference....errr Yeah..I thought I overheard that too, and I meant to listen.. I'se More than a little surprised they would diss tOSU and/or Wisconsin like that. Or was it Mechicken?? Surely not Iowa??? Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Yes, we're overrated. I have no problem saying it. We have not played football deserving of a team ranked in the Top 10. That said, if you look across the entire Top 25, how many teams truly deserve to be where they are ? OU, LSU and Alabama are some of the few teams who I think are right where they should be. You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year. That's not really what I mean. I mean based on my preconceived notions of what a top 10 team looks like, we don't fit the bill. Quote Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Yes, we're overrated. I have no problem saying it. We have not played football deserving of a team ranked in the Top 10. That said, if you look across the entire Top 25, how many teams truly deserve to be where they are ? OU, LSU and Alabama are some of the few teams who I think are right where they should be. You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year. That's not really what I mean. I mean based on my preconceived notions of what a top 10 team looks like, we don't fit the bill. So let's argue about how you're preconceived notions of what a top 10 team looks like are wrong. Quote Link to comment
mnhusker Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Out of the teams ranked below us..I would favor us in all except South Carolina, FSU, and Oregon. So #12-13 would seem right? Oh, and I liked how the BTN guys were stating that Illinois is the 2nd best team in the Conference....errr 1 Oklahoma (50) 2-0 1463 2 Alabama (4) 3-0 1402 3 LSU (5) 3-0 1373 4 Boise State 2-0 1212 5 Stanford 3-0 1208 6 Oklahoma State 3-0 1126 7 Wisconsin 3-0 1121 8 Texas A&M 2-0 1033 9 Nebraska 3-0 966 10 South Carolina 3-0 876 11 Virginia Tech 3-0 852 12 Arkansas 3-0 851 13 Oregon 2-1 804 14 Florida State 2-1 801 15 Florida 3-0 670 16 West Virginia 3-0 529 17 South Florida 3-0 485 18 Texas 3-0 464 19 Baylor 2-0 391 20 TCU 2-1 310 21 Michigan 3-0 243 22 Clemson 3-0 181 23 Michigan State 2-1 119 24 Georgia Tech 3-0 118 25 North Carolina 3-0 99 I'll give you SC, FSU, & Oregon (not that I necessarily agree) but what about Boise State, Stanford, Okla State, and Tex A&M? Maybe we should be #8..... This is the same way I look at it and because Oregon has one loss they are SOL for now you gotta win the games. Quote Link to comment
True2tRA Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 The first rankings should not be issued til' week six or seven in a season. That said, all we need to worry about is winning every game we play and the ratings will take care of themselves. Quote Link to comment
knapplc Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Yes, we're overrated. I have no problem saying it. We have not played football deserving of a team ranked in the Top 10. That said, if you look across the entire Top 25, how many teams truly deserve to be where they are ? OU, LSU and Alabama are some of the few teams who I think are right where they should be. You can't say your first paragraph without taking the second into consideration. Rankings aren't based simply on quality of performance. There has to be a team ranked #7 in the country every week. If we arbitrarily say that being ranked #7 requires a team to have X number of losses and X offensive and X defensive stats, then you'd have a hole at #7 every year when nobody fits that criteria. Let's say a national champion should be a team with no more than one loss and with a SOS in the top 50. That seems more than reasonable, but it also means that there would be no #1 team in 2007. In fact, a strong case could be made that there should have been NO top-ten teams at the end of 2007 if we're just basing it off how teams look on the field and W/L records. It just doesn't work that way. You have to take the teams available, with all their flaws, and rank them in order of best to worst. Someone is going to be ranked in the top ten without having "worthy" stats every week, every year. That's not really what I mean. I mean based on my preconceived notions of what a top 10 team looks like, we don't fit the bill. Then I don't understand, because that is what I responded to. . . . ? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.