the James Franklin thread about not beating ranked teams on the road got me thinking.......
What's more meaningful
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the game is played? or
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the season is over?
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the game is played:
At the time the game is played, the team likely has been playing well to date. But at the beginning of the season, it's all about preseason hype and expectations and less about how good the team has proven itself to be. If a team beats another ranked team, their rankings will likely go down. If they end up unranked, you still want credit for starting that team on the downward trend
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the season is over:
This shows how good the team really was as a whole. If you beat a team that is unranked at the time you play them (especially early in the season), maybe that team ends up on a roll and knocking off some really good competition. But, if you play a team that is ranked near the bottom of the top 25 in the last couple weeks of the season, that team doesn't have a good chance of getting back in the top 25 at the end
I can see both sides. I'm sure TV personalities use either scenario to aid their argument. I'm curious of the board's thoughts on this
What's more meaningful
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the game is played? or
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the season is over?
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the game is played:
At the time the game is played, the team likely has been playing well to date. But at the beginning of the season, it's all about preseason hype and expectations and less about how good the team has proven itself to be. If a team beats another ranked team, their rankings will likely go down. If they end up unranked, you still want credit for starting that team on the downward trend
Beating a team that is ranked at the time the season is over:
This shows how good the team really was as a whole. If you beat a team that is unranked at the time you play them (especially early in the season), maybe that team ends up on a roll and knocking off some really good competition. But, if you play a team that is ranked near the bottom of the top 25 in the last couple weeks of the season, that team doesn't have a good chance of getting back in the top 25 at the end
I can see both sides. I'm sure TV personalities use either scenario to aid their argument. I'm curious of the board's thoughts on this
