During the other thread, I thought about simple criteria to come up with the best games and never got around to posting it. No point in bumping it either, I suppose. But, I think the same rules apply when determining if a game was great or overrated.
A: Was the game meaningful?
This is something that can change in retrospect. Did the Boise St./Oklahoma game seem meaningful beforehand? On the other hand some games that seemed like an epic clash ended up looking a lot less like that later on. Either way, the game needs to have actually meant something.
B: Was it entertaining?
I put this second for a reason, because if the game doesn't mean anything then it doesn't matter how entertaining it was really. No one here is talking about high school or FCS games, right? But, I'd concede that barring something truly extraordinary, the game needs to be close to be entertaining. I don't buy the idea that merely being high scoring makes it more entertaining though, and I've seen low scoring games with huge ratings.
C: Was it memorable?
This is the true test of how great a game was or wasn't. We remember the great games, we name some of them afterward. For instance going back to whether or not high scoring games are more entertaining, there's no question it doesn't seem to impact how memorable they are. Who forgot the regular season meeting between Alabama and LSU in 2011? Applying this to whether or not a game is overrated, the truth is we've forgotten many of the most overrated games (except Selma)