ESPN Power Rankings: Cowboys #19

[gimmesix]

Still doesn't make any sense why they'd move UP after losing by double digits at home.

Possibly the product of scoring more points against Denver than either Dallas or New England, and the Jets losing to Buffalo.

But it really doesn't matter if they threw darts at the names of all the teams from 12 down. None has really done anything that demands it be ranked ahead of the others.

I see indignation here, but not righteous indignation, because we can't really say, "Dallas should be ranked higher because of ..." It isn't a case of what the other teams have done to deserve their ranking, but has Dallas done anything to prove it doesn't deserve to be ranked 19th. I can't say it has.

 

[Nav22]

To specifically address your question, though, the Jets have two "quality" victories, over Houston and New England.

The way our schedule has shaped up isn't our fault.

Regardless, we've beaten the teams we "should" beat and lost to 2 "top 5" teams on the last play of each game.

Isn't that exactly what a 3-2 team is supposed to be? Not quite as good as the elite, but still better than the bottom-feeders?

And shouldn't beating a decent team (or even a good team) be "cancelled out" if you then lose to a mediocre team?

In other words, would we be a better team today if we had held on for the W against Denver... then lost to Kansas City?

I truly don't care about these rankings, but I do find it interesting how Dallas is consistently ranked below their record.

I've never been one to claim bias but I think this season there is clearly evidence of an anti-Dallas bias amongst some of these media.

So be it. But interesting.

It's more obvious to me this year than any other year I can remember. Looks like there was really something to Rick Reilly's comments regarding the media strategy of slamming the Cowboys for ratings.

Okay, the Falcons are ranked 7th, right? The Cowboys at 19. If the Cowboys beat the Falcons, then they should be ranked no lower than #9, like todays worst 4-2 team. Wanna bet they won't make it inside #11?

We won't make it inside #13.

If we win, it will become a "game we were supposed to win", being at home and all.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Quiet. You're being a blind homer if you think the Cardinals are playing better than the Chargers.

 

[Nav22]

The Chargers have a "quality" victory over Miami. We have none.

Philly is ranked #12. They have the same record as Dallas and just lost in Oakland.

Show me their "quality" victory.

 

[windward]

Philly is ranked #12. They have the same record as Dallas and just lost in Oakland.

Show me their "quality" victory.

what's the definition of a quality victory?

 

[leicafan]

The Chargers have a "quality" victory over Miami. We have none.

I don't think a good case can really be made for either team right now, but I guess that's why I'm not big on rankings.

So the eagles has the quality wins over Panthers, Chiefs, and Bucs, and they lost to the all mighty Raiders and Saints. They are way better than us ?

 

[dadymat]

They should logically rank above teams with less "quality" victories, but not necessarily any higher than that.

It isn't about being 4-2, it's how you got there, and then your ranking is still at the whim of the writers doing the rankings, which is why I don't care for rankings.

this isnt the BCS.............

 

[dadymat]

they had to drop us to 19th so that when we beat the Falcons they wont have to move us into top 10 they can just put us at 14th and claim they moved us up 5 spots

 

[gimmesix]

The way our schedule has shaped up isn't our fault.

Regardless, we've beaten the teams we "should" beat and lost to 2 "top 5" teams on the last play of each game.

Isn't that exactly what a 3-2 team is supposed to be? Not quite as good as the elite, but still better than the bottom-feeders?

And shouldn't beating a decent team (or even a good team) be "cancelled out" if you then lose to a mediocre team?

In other words, would we be a better team today if we had held on for the W against Denver... then lost to Kansas City?

Quality losses don't necessarily earn you any credit. Same with beating bad teams.

If we had beat Denver and lost to Kansas City, we would be ranked higher because it would be the Broncos' only loss. It would be harder to justify ranking the Broncos really high (which they would be at 4-1), then ranking the team that beat them that low. The "quality" victory would give us credit.

Right now, we are in the eyes of the media what you said, better than the bottom-feeders, and that's all. Until we beat someone who is not a bottom-feeder, there is no injustice.

 

[Nav22]

what's the definition of a quality victory?

To me, any win in the NFL is a quality victory. I was using gimmesix's terminology. Seems he believes a quality victory is a win against a team that doesn't totally suck.

they had to drop us to 19th so that when we beat the Falcons they wont have to move us into top 10 they can just put us at 14th and claim they moved us up 5 spots

14th is also my guess for where we will be ranked a week from today.

The same spot occupied today by the 2-3 Chargers.

 

[gimmesix]

So the eagles has the quality wins over Panthers, Chiefs, and Bucs, and they lost to the all mighty Raiders and Saints. They are way better than us ?

Didn't say the Eagles deserve to be ranked higher than Dallas, just that the Cowboys haven't done anything to say they are clearly better than the Eagles and deserve to be ranked higher.

Can we truly make an argument based on beating the Bucs, Panthers and Chiefs that we don't deserve to be ranked 19th. I think you can make a better argument against the Eagles' ranking, but that is all.

 

[Nav22]

Quality losses don't necessarily earn you any credit. Same with beating bad teams.

If we had beat Denver and lost to Kansas City, we would be ranked higher because it would be the Broncos' only loss. It would be harder to justify ranking the Broncos really high (which they would be at 4-1), then ranking the team that beat them that low. The "quality" victory would give us credit.

Right now, we are in the eyes of the media what you said, better than the bottom-feeders, and that's all. Until we beat someone who is not a bottom-feeder, there is no injustice.

I'd be interested in hearing your justification for the Eagles' ranking at #12.

 

[gimmesix]

this isnt the BCS.............

Yes, but it is rankings, so certain things are taken into account, including who you beat.

 

[gimmesix]

To me, any win in the NFL is a quality victory. I was using gimmesix's terminology. Seems he believes a quality victory is a win against a team that doesn't totally suck.

If we're talking about in the NFL, then I agree with you that any victory is a quality victory.

If we're talking about rankings, then it's definitely victories against teams that don't totally suck.

 

[windward]

The same spot occupied today by the 2-3 Chargers.

Who after beating the Chiefs moves up to #10

 

[gimmesix]

I'd be interested in hearing your justification for the Eagles' ranking at #12.

There is no justification, just like with Dallas.

The only reason the Eagles are ranked that high is likely because of the hype surrounding them going into the season. They started off near the top, blew out some bad teams, and those ranking them are reluctant to "give up" on them.

I didn't say they got it all right, just that there's no reason to argue where Dallas is ranked because we haven't proven anything. If Dallas had beaten New York or Denver, then I think you've got reason to argue.

 

[Nav22]

If we're talking about in the NFL, then I agree with you that any victory is a quality victory.

If we're talking about rankings, then it's definitely victories against teams that don't totally suck.

Interesting that the Eagles aren't held to the same standards. They've beaten the exact same 3 teams that we've beaten, and even lost to a bottom-feeder. And the one "quality" opponent they've faced (New Orleans) blew them out by 26 points.

Yet somehow, they're 7 spots higher than us. Hmm.

 

[gimmesix]

Interesting that the Eagles aren't held to the same standards. They've beaten the exact same 3 teams that we've beaten, and even lost to a bottom-feeder. And the one "quality" opponent they've faced (New Orleans) blew them out by 26 points.

Yet somehow, they're 7 spots higher than us. Hmm.

Just because Philadelphia gets a ranking it doesn't deserve, doesn't mean Dallas doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is.

Who can say right now that the Cowboys are any better than any of the teams ranked ahead of them? Or that the Cowboys would definitely beat the Raiders?

We just have very little to stand on to justify a better ranking.

 

[Hoofbite]

Just because Philadelphia gets a ranking it doesn't deserve, doesn't mean Dallas doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is.

Who can say right now that the Cowboys are any better than any of the teams ranked ahead of them? Or that the Cowboys would definitely beat the Raiders?

We just have very little to stand on to justify a better ranking.

This I agree with.

And it isn't just rankings. It's all sort of ****. The one that gets me is the "well if that's a penalty against Dallas, such and such should be a penalty against......" And I'm not even talking the same game which would make their point slightly more valid, I'm talking between weeks.

Seeing 1 crappy call is no reason to suggest that another crappy call should happen.

 

[Nav22]

Just because Philadelphia gets a ranking it doesn't deserve, doesn't mean Dallas doesn't deserve to be ranked where it is.

So it's Philadelphia who received the incorrect ranking, and not us. Okay.

Who can say right now that the Cowboys are any better than any of the teams ranked ahead of them?

All we can really go by are record and performance thus far. And our ranking is that of a team worse than 3-2.

The onus isn't on me to prove that we're better than a 3-3 team. Our record already does that for us.

The onus is on ESPN (or you, in this instance ) to explain why we're WORSE than every other 3-2 team in the NFL and even worse than nearly all the 3-3 teams (and a 2-3 team).

I brought up the Eagles because of your "quality victory" justification. As for the preseason hype, please. It's week 7. Notice where last year's 13-3 Titans are ranked?