Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Intermat Rankings

  1. #1
    Olympic Champ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Danville .Indiana

    Default Intermat Rankings

    You know, I think I would rather be a man than a god . We don't need anyone to believe in us. We just keep going anyhow. It's what we do.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Intermat Rankings

    Wow, no love for Cornell. I thought they'd be ranked higher.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Intermat Rankings

    Cornell kind of got screwed in that most people I think assumed Minnesota crapped the bed and would potentially beat them in a rematch. I don't like that concept. In fairness, they should be above Minnesota which means they should be no lower than #3. I find it interesting they make those assumptions with teams but in the case of a Little Ness, who people would think he would probably beat Eifert in a re-match, still snuck Eifert past Ness which is the right thing to do in the rankings in my opinion. That logic followed with the Steinhaus/Q match as well. They saw fit to not move Steinhaus above #5 with his victory over #1 but dropped Q behind him in the rankings to #6. I see the logic in that as well since Steinhaus lost to #3 Bosak and there is no reason to move him above the other three at 184 because they have not lost. The Cornell at #5 ranking doesn't follow logic or reason then based on that.

    That being said, rankings will always be a lightning rod, that's why I love looking at them when they come out.
    "Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until they speak."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts