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.
Anybody can spin anything any way they'd like to "justify" something. Doesn't mean it's a good argument.
You could justifiy that the Cowboys should be no higher than the Titans. We haven't played any of the 6 teams that Tennessee has faced, so who's to say we'd do any better???
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.
That's my thinking too.
I can believe they have performed better, but I can't offer substantial proof. And without substantial proof, I cannot prove bias.
Maybe that's where we differ. I'm not trying to "prove" bias. It's all a matter of opinion.
And it's my opinion that their ranking of the Cowboys is bull.
Besides, the "formula" you've come up with to try justifying the rankings are pretty arbitrary. And even in following your reasoning to a T, it offers 0 justification for the Eagles' ranking.
Another poster said it perfectly. The worst 4-2 team in the rankings is the Bengals, at #9. Do you honestly think we'll jump 10 spots next week if we beat Atlanta? Didn't think so.
I suspect we'll simply go from being the worst 3-2 team in football to the worst 4-2 team in football.
