You seem to want it both ways. You complain that MissSt jumped in the polls - but that's based on the idea that they were unranked by the preseason polls you say are meaningful but shouldn't be. That shows that the preseason view of MissSt quickly became irrelevant once you had actual data. Maybe MissSt shouldn't have jumped so much, but maybe they shouldn't have been so low in the first place. At the end of the day, they are one of only 3 unbeaten teams. Had there been no preseason or regular season polls until this week, they end up in basically the same spot as they are in now. And while you might not think Auburn is very good, but they went on the road and solidly beat arguably the best team in the Big12. They then got beaten by MissSt. You're complaining about using perception instead of data, but then want to ignore the actual data when it's not convenient. Beating Auburn is as good a win as any team in the country has.
They jumped the polls because when they beat LSU and A&M they were considered highly ranked, quality teams. The data that we had was that they beat some overranked teams. When they beat A&M and LSU we had plenty of actual data to show those teams weren't good enough to hop someone from unranked to #3 just because they had those wins on the resume. I can point to other examples of teams beating highly ranked teams and not getting such a huge bump (ie when Zona beat Oregon). I highly doubt TCU would have received such a big bump if they held on vs Baylor as well. That's my point. My initial comment was that they received such a high and historic bump because of the overrated SEC teams that they beat. Early rankings had something to do with that. I doubt it. After they beat A&M (and at this point they had only beaten LSU and A&M as they didn't play Auburn until the next weekend) they were already ranked ahead of unbeaten Baylor (who had beaten no one), unbeaten Notre Dame (who had beaten no one), unbeaten TCU (who had just knocked off #4 OU) and unbeaten Arizona (who had just beaten #2 Oregon). Auburn was also ranked #2 at this point, with K-State the biggest win on the resume. They are #1 now, ahead of defending champ Florida that just knocked off Notre Dame. They would not be in the same spot. I don't think Auburn is good enough for a team to be ranked #1 because they beat them. I'm not ignoring the data. Beating Auburn is not as good a win as beating OU or Oregon, for example. Miss St was ranked ahead of teams that did that before they even played Auburn. beating Auburn is also not as good of a win as beating Notre Dame. Miss St is currently ranked ahead of the team that did that as well. I'm going by these rankings. I've acknowledged I don't know as much about the other rankings that you mentioned. http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/9
What makes you say OU, ND or Oregon are more impressive than Auburn? Auburn has a higher quality win and a higher quality loss than all of those teams. Notre Dame has a case, but Oregon and Oklahoma sure as hell don't.
Higher quality win, yes. Loss, no. The only reason the loss is higher quality is because Miss St was ranked so high from beating LSU and the Aggies. Again, they hopped to #3 before even playing Auburn, when they didn't have higher quality wins than the other undefeated teams that I mentioned (well 2 of them). What's the reasoning for that?
What double standard have I used? Refusal to answer my question on how Miss St got to #3, ahead of teams with higher quality wins at the time when they only had wins over LSU and A&M (the standard you just noted for Auburn)? Same for Auburn being #2 at the time, when beating K-State was not as impressive as Zona beating Oregon or TCU beating OU? And for the record, I never said OU should be ranked ahead of Auburn.
You're using them right now! How is a win against Oklahoma not as impressive as beating Kansas State? Kansas State beat Oklahoma at Oklahoma! How is a home loss to Arizona a better loss than on the road against Miss. State? There's literally no logical reason for that to be the case. Arizona is not as good as Miss. State. Virtually everybody would agree with that. Mississippi State got to 3 because other teams lost while they stayed undefeated. Who has a better resume than them outside of FSU or Ole Miss? There's nobody! You're being hopelessly dense right now. I get it. You think the SEC is overrated. You're in the minority, and virtually every rankings system disagrees with what you're saying, so this really isn't worth the time.
When TCU beat OU they were the #4 team in the country. Kansas State started ranked #20. They were still ranked #20 when Auburn beat them. OU was considered a title contender. Kansas State has never been considered that (they have never even cracked the top 10). Are you seriously asking me how was TCU beating OU considered a bigger win? It isn't. I was referring to ND but the post did not specify that. But in regards to Auburn, I said a team beating Arizona is a better quality win than a team beating Kansas State. If quality wins are your measure (changing now?) then how does that explain Auburn and Miss St being ranked ahead of TCU and Zona when they had better quality wins on their resume? When Miss St got to #3 there were other undefeated teams with higher quality wins, that I have previously mentioned/ I think some teams in the SEC start off the year with rakings that are too high and that impacts the rankings throughout the season. Beating these teams allows a team to come out of nowhere to a top ranking and losing to a team means you don't drop very far. You can save your insults though. I'm not one to have discussions with in that manner.
Arizona had a good win against Oregon, but they turned around and lost at home to USC! TCU lost to Baylor, who just lost to West Virginia! Are we really saying that those are more impressive resumes than losing to the consensus top team in the country? And yes...I am really trying to say that, in hindsight, a road win against Kansas State is much more impressive than a win at home against Oklahoma. Now that we know Oklahoma is a fraud, who also LOST TO K STATE THEMSELVES AT HOME, Kansas State is proving to be the much more impressive team. Saying TCU's win against Oklahoma is more impressive than Auburn's win on the road against Kansas State is just illogical, unless we're strictly going off preseason hype, which as we know is ludicrous. This is hopeless. It's really not worth discussing further. Virtually every CFB expert and prominent media member, as well as virtually all rankings systems, support what I'm saying. You are grossly underselling Miss. State and Auburn's resume.
When Miss St first jumped to #3 Arizona was undefeated and had just beaten Oregon that same weekend. They did not have a higher quality win than Arizona at that time, yet were still ranked higher. When Miss St first jumped to #3 TCU was undefeated and had just beaten OU that same weekend. They did not have a higher quality win than OU at that time, yet were still ranked higher. Yes, they had a more impressive resume when Miss St first hopped to #3, prior to even playing Auburn. This is what I keep asking you about, that you keep ignoring. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. It should be clear now. I did not say either of these teams with a loss had a more impressive resume than the undefeated team at the moment. I did say I think FSU does. My initial post said Miss St hopped up by beating overrated SEC teams (LSU and A&M), and that the preseason rankings have an impact as the year goes on. What is the justification for Miss St being #3 when they only had wins against A&M and LSU on their resume? If you think OU is a fraud then you surely think LSU and A&M are frauds. Yet people still will reference how many ranked teams Miss St beat to justify their top ranking. Here is the beginning of the ESPN article after they obtained the top spot: We finally agree on something.
