That's the equivalent of saying that a team beating the other after the first quarter, is "at that moment" by all rights the "better team" -- even if they lose by 50....when it's all said and done.Rankings are reflective, not predictive. Outside of maybe the first 3-4 weeks of the season, no one in the coach’s or AP poll votes based on what they assume will happen at a later time. Each week the rankings are a short term perception of what each team’s total body of work is to that specific point.
Your position is an assumption that Auburn will lose 4 games, Texas 5 games, etc, therefore invalidating the perceived strength of LSU’s schedule to date. I don’t even disagree with your projection. However it’s all subjugation until it happens and therefore doesn’t carry any weight in the discussion of current rankings. The expectation of future events doesn’t change the events that have previously occurred.
Therefore until they lose or your speculation has been proven on the field, LSU does have the superior resume and it is a legitimate conclusion that they are deserving of a spot ahead of us at this time. It’s not that difficult of a concept.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does that also mean that Penn State is worthy of being ranked higher than us too?
Because their SOS is ranked 9th, and ours is 17th? Yet we are both undefeated?
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other
That's my entire point about this whole LSU thing. If you use some method of logic, you have to apply it throughout......
So -- If SOS (so far in the season) is your criteria -- then:
tOSU is 1st
Penn State is 2nd
LSU is 3rd
Bama is 4th
Otherwise, saying LSU is more worthy because their SOS is 10th and ours is 17th -- doesn't hold up....
You have to make LSU 3rd....to the Buckeyes and Lions
Last edited: