That you don't know who CFN is doesn't lend credibility to your position. CFN stands for CollegeFootballNews.com, and is easily the best college football coverage available. Take all the writers for ESPN combined and you'll get a fraction of the quality and depth of CFN. For starters, ESPN spends 90% of their coverage on 10 teams. CFN covers everyone and actually watches the games. Check it out, you'll like it.
As for the rankings, no point in rehashing. I stick with my opinion that they'll all finish higher than they are now, due to playing their toughest stretches of their schedule early. But regardless of whether they're any good, surely we can agree that Nebraska's have been truly awful. Nobody higher than 85th? I'm not trying to knock you, but it's worth noting that we don't know how good you'll play against a team like Mizzou. Essentially what that means is that you've got a one game record right now, and with mixed results in that one game.
Whether Mizzou has one or more such games is up for debate. I think we've seen enough quality to know somewhat what we can expect. You apparently disagree.
As for Sagarin, you can call him respected if you want. It's a computer ranking. It's not all that accurate in Week 12 and it sure as heck isn't accurate in Week 4, and he'll be the first to tell you that.
I may have worded it poorly but of course I know
who CFN is. The point is you arbitrarily picked them because they buttress your weak point. CFN's ranking is an opinion based on the whim of those casting ballots, nothing more. If a guy has a grudge against USC it's reflected in their rankings. Sagarin's computer holds no bias, which is why it's cited time and again by sportswriters across the country as a reference point.
As for whether Nebraska or Missouri has played enough quality to show what they have, clearly the answer is yes. Missouri has struggled against weak opponents while Nebraska dominated theirs. Throw out Furman and throw out VT, and we'll focus on the three patsies each team has played.
By CFN's rankings we should have beaten the hell out of these teams - their average rank is 95, while ours is 6th (which is a joke, but this is YOUR preferred ranking system). So we should have taken these three teams to the woodshed, and we did. Handily. Nebraska held all three of their Sunbelt opponents to their lowest point total of the season, an average of two TDs less than they've scored in their other games.
By CFN's rankings Missouri should have beaten the hell out of their weak non-con schedule as well. MO's average opponent rank is 74, well below what would be average in a 120-team ranking. Missouri should have beaten all of these teams quite easily, being ranked #16 by CFN, but they didn't. In fact, they struggled with two of them to an embarrassing degree. Missouri was able to put Illinois away, and held them to their season average right at nine points. But Missouri struggled with Nevada and Bowling Green, giving up each team's highest point total of the non-conference schedule, allowing even 0-3 Nevada an extra TD above their average, and struggling to put them away into the fourth quarter. This is a winless team who has been shellacked by Notre Dame and Colorado State, but Missouri couldn't put them away.
And bear in mind, to be fair to your school we're not even talking about the Virginia Tech game for Nebraska, because by anyone's ranking system, VT is on a completely different tier than anything Missouri has played so far. It's not even close. And if you didn't see the success Nebraska had against VT, you're blind or drunk on the kool-aid.
