Resume Ranking Means…

…never having to say you’re sorry.

Ole Miss clearly wasn’t the 4th best team (AP) nor 5th best (Coaches’ Poll) in the country. They weren’t even the 8th best (our very own BlogPoll).

I had them at 14th ranked on a resume basis, which I admit may have even been generous given the dearth of quality teams they had faced. But my goal wasn’t forward looking as the system many rankers employ, and I didn’t really have an opinion how “good” Ole Miss was or wasn’t.

So if *you* ranked Ole Miss in the top 5 based on perceived team quality, *you* were wrong. Just like *you* were wrong when it came to Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and USC.

So say it - *you're* sorry.

Likewise, as a resume ranker, I will have no problem dropping Mississippi from my top 25 as a resume that includes wins over 2 non-BCS teams, and a loss to their first conference opponent, isn’t a team that ranks among the top 25 by record (especially in light of the fact that it should have been worse – South Carolina had several opportunities to score that they bungled with penalties).

Traditional rankers seem to believe there is some mysterious gravitational force that keeps highly ranked teams from “falling too far”. For resume rankers teams don’t “rise” or “fall”, they merely get placed where they belong.

Traditional ranking looks pretty bad at this point in the season.