(Link courtesy of Sparkscoug on eDuck)
http://preseason.stassen.com/over-under/all-teams.html
Based on final ranking vs preseason polls... Michigan and Notre Dame made the bottom 2 (ie: Most over-rated).
Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1
-
woundedknees
- All-American
- Posts: 12821
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:06 pm
Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
Autzen Stadium... Where great teams go to die...Hard!


- UOducksTK1
- Site Admin

- Posts: 40477
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
- GM: Boston Celtics GM
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
Kind of a strange statistic, because the good teams will always have high expectations and if they don't meet that threshold, then they will be considered "overrated." Basically, there will never be a time where top ranked teams will be considered underrated.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
-
duck55
- Senior
- Posts: 2157
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:37 am
- Location: Keizer OR
Re: Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
Tennessee & USC in the bottom 10 also 
-
GoDucksIn09
- Senior
- Posts: 3086
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:15 am
Re: Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
I can not speak as to Tennessee but as far as USC.. they have spent a lot of time in top 5 and was a time spent a lot of time at #1 so as TK said any time ranked that high it is easy to be overrated because to even finish season ranked 2nd.. if ranked 1st in preseason would be looked at as oveerated given these rankings. It is an intriguing statistic but in some aspects would rather be ranked high for numerous years running even if it means some years fall below where ranked initially. USC still gets the big time recruits despite being on that statistic.
- wheaton4prez
- Senior
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 pm
Re: Oregon the second most underrated D-1 team of the decade...
Interesting idea to rank teams on this criteria. But, I don't think it's quite right. The differences should be averaged rather than cumulative. As it is, a team that was only in the top rankings a few times has no possibility of appearing as over or under rated, simply because they haven't been toward the top as many times. That shouldn't be factoring into these results.