Shut up dummy.
Then if that's the case, why even rank G5 teams at all if you think they supposedly could lose to other P5 teams that they don't even play? A&M beat one team with a winning record all year. That's it. They also barely squeaked by a horrible (like, absolutely horrible) Arkansas team, a point you keep ignoring. And if we're playing this stupid hypotheticals game, Oklahoma State lost to 4-8 Texas Tech by 10, so any of those G5 teams could easily beat them.
That doesn't make them good, though. That's the point. How were they "far better" just because they proved they could lose to elite teams? Anyone can do that. The only "good" team they beat was Oklahoma State. Big deal, 4-8 Texas Tech beat them too, and by more points. That's not a top 25 resume.
And what do you call the wins A&M had? Again, they had one win against a team with a winning record. One win. I'm not saying those teams wouldn't lose the same 5 games A&M did. If they did, and they all only had one win over a team with a winning record, I'd laugh at the idea of them being ranked, too. Losing to good teams and only beating crappy ones doesn't make you a top 25 team. You still don't seem to get that.
if most people here barely recognize the NCAA sanctioned olympic sports whey would they recognize the non NCAA sports and some of what you brought up arent even sports.
On the ice or track?
