#14 beats #13 in a Pac 12 matchup and ESPN branded it as an upset post game. #24 beats #6 in an SEC matchup and ESPN is branding not at all like an upset and uses a vocabulary that suggests they were equal in strength.

did anyone else notice this or is it just me?

South Carolina was ranked higher than Georgia early on. Texas A&M was ranked way too low. I wouldn't list the South Carolina win as an upset but I don't put much stock at all in the Rankings at this point of the season.

The same goes for that USC and Stanford match up as well as their rankings. Stanford has been the dominant power for the last few years while USC has been mired in major issues. USC went up to Stanford and handed them a loss. Rankings be damned, I don't live by propagandized opinion. USC shocked Stanford at Stanford. I am pretty sure Georgia knew they were in for one hell of a battle AT South Carolina.

Have you just now figured out that ESPN is biased towards the SEC???

(09-13-2014 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  #14 beats #13 in a Pac 12 matchup and ESPN branded it as an upset post game. #24 beats #6 in an SEC matchup and ESPN is branding not at all like an upset and uses a vocabulary that suggests they were equal in strength.

did anyone else notice this or is it just me?

On Game Day I heard Reece Davis call it an upset while on other shows the game was described as a contest of two equally matched teams.

Who cares... just enjoy their games. Not on my top ten list of life's worries.

Really there should be no ranking until after Sept. I know the networks and media love pre-season (and early season) rankings to sell match-ups, but it really rewards name schools and often last season's success too much and used to bias the polls towards schools ranked high to start. Luckily the committee will not be using them (supposedly).

(09-15-2014 01:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Really there should be no ranking until after Sept. I know the networks and media love pre-season (and early season) rankings to sell match-ups, but it really rewards name schools and often last season's success too much and used to bias the polls towards schools ranked high to start. Luckily the committee will not be using them (supposedly).

exactly...

(09-15-2014 01:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Really there should be no ranking until after Sept. I know the networks and media love pre-season (and early season) rankings to sell match-ups, but it really rewards name schools and often last season's success too much and used to bias the polls towards schools ranked high to start. Luckily the committee will not be using them (supposedly).

Agreed. As stated the favor usually goes to the 'name' and the previous years finish.

(09-15-2014 01:07 AM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Really there should be no ranking until after Sept. I know the networks and media love pre-season (and early season) rankings to sell match-ups, but it really rewards name schools and often last season's success too much and used to bias the polls towards schools ranked high to start. Luckily the committee will not be using them (supposedly).

It's messed up early on but I really don't think it impacts final rankings much if at all.

Rankings are just a fact of life, don't ever see them going away