I want to ask a question that will require analytical vs. emotional responses- yes, we want to be rooting for AAC teams but with some legitimacy on valid success. Why do many on here want to over value USF? Seriously, name top 20 teams that they have beaten vs. the number of losses they have incurred (besides UConn)? Seriously, what constitutes them to be included in the Top 25? Just because they may be the second best AAC team? I will say I am saddened by the step back most of the AAC teams seem to have taken this year-UCF, Tulane, SMU with Temple crippled by a key injury. Memphis had 7 players and while they gave a valiant effort, they were just not good. Is Houston legit? They have no significant wins, thought their 3 losses are to good teams. Cincy? Sorry Janelle but you lost to St.Francis on top of not playing anyone other than tOSU. So if we are analytical, no AAC team is really worthy. The good new is we should see if our subs develop enough to get to solid 8/9 players.
These are all good questions to reflect on. I wouldn't advocate for anyone to overvalued, and it's a bit of a reflex for me to want to see USF among the ranked teams.
However, USF is currently #26 in the Massey ratings and #17 in Sagarin. These numbers suggest it's a team that can reasonably aspire to be top 25, even if its results thus far are not so convincing.
USF's best wins so far are (by Massey/Sagarin rating): LSU (39/48), St. John's (48/43), Dayton (65/61), and Washington St (64/73).
USF's losses: Notre Dame (2/6), Michigan State (30/22), and Oklahoma (46/32).
Not a great resume, but not horrible either.
If we look at other teams near the bottom of the AP top 25, we see similar weaknesses in resume. For example:
— #22 Michigan's only top-100 wins are over Marquette, Penn State, and Ohio.
— #23 Cal's only top-100 wins are over USC, Saint Mary's, and Kentucky.
— #25 Arizona State's only top-100 wins are over Buffalo, Utah, Colorado, and Arkansas.