[FarmBoy]

#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 UFDFG in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over UFDFG, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over UFDFG was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a UFDFG that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.

You can't look at the pre-season AP poll. You have to look at Wilner's pre-season poll. He ranked Oklahoma only 11th, so he didn't thank as highly as the national media of Oklahoma (good on him on that) and perhaps the way Houston won further downgrades teh quality of OU as an opponent. Similarly, Wilner thought UND was #6 (higher than the pundits), so Texas' win has even greater value in his eyes.

#6 UFDFG (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does UFDFG lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?

Again, he had them at 6 before the game. Taking a team to Double OT on the road that he now considers one of the top in the nation isn't inconsistent with a #6 ranking, in my opinion.

#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind UFDFG, who lost?

He probably is giving weight to the fact that Wisconsin won in essentially a home game and ND performed on the road. Nitpicking over #6 vs #7 isn't very constructive at this point anyway.

#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.

He had previously ranked A&M #25, so this is still a big jump. And he had ranked UCLA #16. He may have been impressed by the way A&M beat UCLA more than he was Stanford beating KSU as well.

I'd go on but have a meeting to get to. In summary, I'm sure Wilner has his share of inconsistencies and contradictions, but you need to look at his own views/rankings  on the quality of opponents, not general consensus. And I think he does a fair job of trying to be independent on his rankings of teams, unswayed by national perception and hype. He probably overvalues SEC teams and undervalues local teams whose flaws his more familiar with. But on the whole, I value his contribution to the rankings.

[FarmBoy]

#5 Houston (Previously 15): beat previously #3 Oklahoma.  Fine, makes sense, though I'm not sure why Texas' win over previously #10 UFDFG in overtime would push the Longhorns from unranked to #2, while Houston's double digit win over previously #3 Oklahoma would move the Cougars from #15 to #10.  Houston started more highly ranked, beat a more highly ranked team, and did so more decisively than Texas over UFDFG, and yet Houston rises less than Texas?  Wilner basically decides that Houston's win over Oklahoma was because Oklahoma wasn't that great (obviously, since Oklahoma lost by 10 to Houston!) While Texas' win over UFDFG was because Texas was really much better than he thought (of course, since Texas beat a UFDFG that pushed his new #2 Texas to overtime!)  See what I mean about circular reasoning?  It's almost like it is better to beat another team by a close score, because it proves that you beat a pretty good team rather than crushing the other team, which just proves the team you beat sucked and that your win should be discounted accordingly.  Either way, though, I can justify jumping Texas and Houston over Stanford.

You can't look at the pre-season AP poll. You have to look at Wilner's pre-season poll. He ranked Oklahoma only 11th, so he didn't thank as highly as the national media of Oklahoma (good on him on that) and perhaps the way Houston won further downgrades teh quality of OU as an opponent. Similarly, Wilner thought UND was #6 (higher than the pundits), so Texas' win has even greater value in his eyes.

#6 UFDFG (previously 10):  Wait, what?!?  Wilner jumped a team that lost to a previously unranked Big12 team over a team that beat a previously unranked Big12 team by 13 points.  In what universe does that make sense?  How does UFDFG lose and move up in the rankings over any team that won?

Again, he had them at 6 before the game. Taking a team to Double OT on the road that he now considers one of the top in the nation isn't inconsistent with a #6 ranking, in my opinion.

#7 Wisconsin (previously unranked): Beat previously #5 LSU 16-14.  I can see why he elevated Wisconsin over Stanford.  But the Wisconsin win is at least as good as the Texas or Houston win, so why is Wisconsin behind UFDFG, who lost?

He probably is giving weight to the fact that Wisconsin won in essentially a home game and ND performed on the road. Nitpicking over #6 vs #7 isn't very constructive at this point anyway.

#8 Texas A&M (previously unranked): Beat previously unranked UCLA.  I'm not sure an overtime win over previously unranked UCLA merits a jump to #8, but you might make the case that UCLA is probably expected to be a stronger team than K-state.  But it was an overtime win over an unranked team, so it's a bit puzzling that it is just worth one space lower on the totem poll than Wisconsin, who beat the previous #5 in regulation.

He had previously ranked A&M #25, so this is still a big jump. And he had ranked UCLA #16. He may have been impressed by the way A&M beat UCLA more than he was Stanford beating KSU as well.

I'd go on but have a meeting to get to. In summary, I'm sure Wilner has his share of inconsistencies and contradictions, but you need to look at his own views/rankings  on the quality of opponents, not general consensus. And I think he does a fair job of trying to be independent on his rankings of teams, unswayed by national perception and hype. He probably overvalues SEC teams and undervalues local teams whose flaws his more familiar with. But on the whole, I value his contribution to the rankings.