ESPN Power Rankings: Cowboys #19

[SharutoX]

eagles should be ranked last for losing to the raiders

 

[gimmesix]

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?

Our record says we should be ranked above teams 3-3, 2-3, etc. Our performance gives us no evidence to demand it.

If the Eagles were ranked 19th, their fans would be in the same ship. How can you say you deserve better when you've lost to your only quality opponents and the teams you've beaten suck?

It doesn't really matter if the team ranked above you has done the same thing because you have nothing to prove that you are better than they are.

Even if we were to argue we deserve to be ranked above the Eagles, what do we have as proof? That they lost to the Raiders? That doesn't prove anything regarding us.

Right now, we just have no leg to stand on. I can't say we're worse than every other 3-2 team in the NFL, but I certainly don't have evidence to say we're better.

Let's get some of that before we cry foul.

 

[Nav22]

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.

I'd say the ESPN Power Rankings are a little more deliberate than an official making a bone-headed call in the heat of the moment.

 

[Nav22]

Our record says we should be ranked above teams 3-3, 2-3, etc. Our performance gives us no evidence to demand it.

Our record IS our performance.

We've performed at a 3-2 level, and you'd be hard-pressed to try arguing otherwise.

 

[Hoofbite]

I'd say the ESPN Power Rankings are a little more deliberate than an official making a bone-headed call in the heat of the moment.

So what's your problem with their rankings? If you think they suck and are biased, why are you arguing the validity of their rankings?

Rankings are an opinion anyway. Might be something worth keeping in mind.

 

[cowboys#1]

this list is a joke ...we should be #1

 

[Nav22]

So what's your problem with their rankings? If you think they suck and are biased, why are you arguing the validity of their rankings?

Rankings are an opinion anyway. Might be something worth keeping in mind.

When did I argue the validity? I said they're more deliberate than an official's call. As in, they take more time/effort in their power rankings than a ref does when he tosses out a flag for pass interference.

Thanks for reminding me that it's an opinion.

Reminder: I'm entitled to one of those "opinion" things as well.

 

[Hoofbite]

When did I argue the validity? I said they're more deliberate than an official's call. As in, they take more time/effort in their power rankings than a ref does when he tosses out a flag for pass interference.

Thanks for reminding me that it's an opinion.

Reminder: I'm entitled to one of those "opinion" things as well.

This whole thread is nothing but you arguing against their rankings.

Furthermore, if you think they are deliberately ranking Dallas low you think they are biased.

So I am asking why you are so worked up if you think they are biased.

 

[casmith07]

lol...you guys live and die by the junk that a bunch of guys that never played a sport in their lives are writing.

 

[gimmesix]

Our record IS our performance.

We've performed at a 3-2 level, and you'd be hard-pressed to try arguing otherwise.

Would you not say being 3-2 and having beaten the Giants, Broncos and Patriots (or any other team with a winning record) would be considered a better performance than being 3-2 and having beaten the Bucs, Panthers and Chiefs?

If not, then there is no argument I can make that is going to be acceptable to you.

 

[Nav22]

This whole thread is nothing but you arguing against their rankings.

Furthermore, if you think they are deliberately ranking Dallas low you think they are biased.

So I am asking why you are so worked up if you think they are biased.

"So worked up" :laugh2:

The rankings themselves don't matter much to me. I believe I know why we're ranked where we are, and yeah, it is that "biased" thing.

In other words, I respect the board's opinions on where the Cowboys stand more than I do ESPN's. ESPN = agenda. I happen to think their #19 ranking for us is total bull.

I already said I don't care much about the rankings themselves. My involvement in the thread has been in responding to members who feel that our #19 ranking is right where we belong. I disagree. That's pretty much the gist of it.

But the intelligent fans here can, for the most part, give a fair opinion on where the Cowboys are entering Week 7. I don't know any intelligent Cowboys fans who honestly believe we're the worst 3-2 team in football.

If that means I'm "so worked up", so be it... I think it's a valid and interesting discussion.

Would you not say being 3-2 and having beaten the Giants, Broncos and Patriots (or any other team with a winning record) would be considered a better performance than being 3-2 and having beaten the Bucs, Panthers and Chiefs?

If not, then there is no argument I can make that is going to be acceptable to you.

Yeah, I would agree that that particular 3-2 team has performed at a "higher than 3-2" level.

Have all 5 3-2 teams that aren't the Cowboys performed at a HIGHER than 3-2 level?

No?

Then that means the rankings imply that Dallas has performed at a BELOW than 3-2 level.

And like I said, you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that Dallas has performed at below a 3-2 level.

 

[gimmesix]

Have all 5 3-2 teams that aren't the Cowboys performed at a HIGHER than 3-2 level?

That's ultimately irrelevant if Dallas hasn't beaten anyone to show it deserves to be ranked higher.

When you have no skins on the wall (and victories over winless teams are not skins), then it is easy for someone to justify you not being better than this 3-2 team or that 3-3 team or that 2-3 team.

That isn't bias because there is nothing they are really discounting. You just don't have evidence based on who Dallas has beaten that they have really performed better than any 3-2 team or 3-3 team or 2-3 team. (It's easy to say we beat teams all of them would have beaten and lost to teams all of them would have lost to.)

I can believe they have performed better, but I can't offer substantial proof. And without substantial proof, I cannot prove bias.

Dallas just has done nothing to say they definitely deserve to be higher than San Diego or Philadelphia, etc. Those three victories mean virtually nothing to those doing the rankings because of who we beat. Simple as that.

 

[Bleu Star]

Who cares? Really.

Everyone cares. Don't kids yourself. Hostile's "What are your 5" thread tells the story every week.

#19 sounds about right.

 

[utrunner07]

:laugh2:at all you people getting worked up over these stupid things. Why do you even care? It would make since if we were 6-0 and ranked 19, but when you have played like we have...who cares where we are ranked.
:starspin

 

[Cover 2]

this list is a joke ...we should be #1

:laugh2:

 

[sonnyboy]

That's ultimately irrelevant if Dallas hasn't beaten anyone to show it deserves to be ranked higher.

When you have no skins on the wall (and victories over winless teams are not skins), then it is easy for someone to justify you not being better than this 3-2 team or that 3-3 team or that 2-3 team.

That isn't bias because there is nothing they are really discounting. You just don't have evidence based on who Dallas has beaten that they have really performed better than any 3-2 team or 3-3 team or 2-3 team. (It's easy to say we beat teams all of them would have beaten and lost to teams all of them would have lost to.)

I can believe they have performed better, but I can't offer substantial proof. And without substantial proof, I cannot prove bias.

Dallas just has done nothing to say they definitely deserve to be higher than San Diego or Philadelphia, etc. Those three victories mean virtually nothing to those doing the rankings because of who we beat. Simple as that.

Read every post in this thread. Here's what you're missing. This isn't all about Dallas. Every response you've made is about Dallas........ Dallas this and Dallas that. Dallas Dallas Dallas!

I get it. You're unhappy with the team and believe they deserve no credit for anything.

But this isn't a ranking of Dallas alone in your vacuum. It's a ranking off all 32 teams.

There is not one team ranked behind Dallas you can make a legit argument is better. Certainly not that they have outplayed Dallas.

You can make a strong argument for multiple teams ranked ahead of them.
Packers, Chargers, Niners, Cardinals, Texans, Jets.

The only team in this group I'd rank ahead of Dallas on merit is the Cardinals.

 

[BourbonBalz]

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

Show me their "quality" victory.

This. For those of you that for some reason want to defend these very stupid power rankings, please explain this. Don't get me wrong. I could care less about these meaningless polls, but they definitely show an anti-Cowboy bias. If you can't see it, simply open your eyes.

 

[BourbonBalz]

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.

Yes. This is pretty telling if you ask me. We have lost two games to teams with an 11-1 record, and we were one play away from winning either or both games. We have not lost to a bad team (Raiders) and we have not been blown out of the water by a good team (Saints). The fact that the Eagles are ranked ahead of us proves this ranking is ****.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Our record says we should be ranked above teams 3-3, 2-3, etc. Our performance gives us no evidence to demand it.

If the Eagles were ranked 19th, their fans would be in the same ship. How can you say you deserve better when you've lost to your only quality opponents and the teams you've beaten suck?

It doesn't really matter if the team ranked above you has done the same thing because you have nothing to prove that you are better than they are.

Even if we were to argue we deserve to be ranked above the Eagles, what do we have as proof? That they lost to the Raiders? That doesn't prove anything regarding us.

Right now, we just have no leg to stand on. I can't say we're worse than every other 3-2 team in the NFL, but I certainly don't have evidence to say we're better.

Let's get some of that before we cry foul.

I beg to differ. We have not been blown out and we have not lost to one of the three worst teams in the league.

 

[BourbonBalz]

That's ultimately irrelevant if Dallas hasn't beaten anyone to show it deserves to be ranked higher.

When you have no skins on the wall (and victories over winless teams are not skins), then it is easy for someone to justify you not being better than this 3-2 team or that 3-3 team or that 2-3 team.

That isn't bias because there is nothing they are really discounting. You just don't have evidence based on who Dallas has beaten that they have really performed better than any 3-2 team or 3-3 team or 2-3 team. (It's easy to say we beat teams all of them would have beaten and lost to teams all of them would have lost to.)

I can believe they have performed better, but I can't offer substantial proof. And without substantial proof, I cannot prove bias.

Dallas just has done nothing to say they definitely deserve to be higher than San Diego or Philadelphia, etc. Those three victories mean virtually nothing to those doing the rankings because of who we beat. Simple as that.

You're trying to have it both ways and that doesn't fly. If "good" wins determine where a team should be ranked, "bad" losses should do the same. The Eagles have two "very bad" losses and no good wins. We have no good wins (according to your analysis), but we also have no "very bad" losses. It all matters. You can't pick and choose.