Overranked?

[tschu]

I think we're overrated slightly. 14th or 15th seems about right, at the moment.

 

[GM_Tood]

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

 

[HuskerShark]

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.

:yeah

 

[T_O_Bull]

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

 

[JJ Husker]

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.

 

[JJ Husker]

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.....

 

[yurmomsaho]

Yes most definitely

 

[bournehusker]

Of course we are over ranked but I say who cares til you get beat.

 

[deedsker]

Of course we are over ranked but I say who cares til you get beat.

yep

 

[HUSKER 37]

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. :laughpound

Or was it Mechicken??

Surely not Iowa???

 

[Enhance]

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.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

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. chuckleshuffle

 

[mnhusker]

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.

 

[True2tRA]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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. . . . ?