Have I mentioned I hate power rankings? This link bait is as worthless as a set of '90 Pro Set. So I figured I'd mock them by ranking 5 of the most obvious rankings out there. But then I got goofy and actually created loose criteria to judge them by, including:

• Ranking the undefeated defending NFC champs in the top 5 last week (+2)
• Ranking the Saints in the top 10 this week (-1)
• Analyzing last week's Eagles performance by talking about "big" Mike Patterson (-2)
• Visually pleasing page layout/graphics (+1)
• Introducing rankings with scoring criteria (-1)
• Allowing the world to read content created in part by John Clayton for free (-1)
• Including team records so we can easily see how stupid at least 3 picks are (+2)
• Dropping a previous week's #1 5 spots after losing to the Colts (-5)
• Ranking Bears (returning division champ) ahead of Ravens (beat TB, OAK and CLE) (+1)
• Donovan McNabb's name in bold anywhere on the page (+1)

I think that's it. Without further adieu:

1. CBS - Power Rankings (+4)
   Prisco #1? The Hawks were in the top 5 and no mention of Patterson.
   
   
2. ESPN - NFL Power Rankings (+3)
   Not making this Insider content cost them a crucial point... always pay for Clayton!
   
   
3. Fox Sports - NFL Power Rankings (+1)
   Bears over Ravens was this Schrager fella's only scoring category.
   
   
4. NFL.com - Power Poll (E)
   The inclusion of team records bailed out the ugliest looking pro sport's site.
   
   
5. SI - Dr. Z's Power Rankings (-6)
   If the Jags fell from 1 to 6 because they lost to the Colts, Z couldn't have really believed they were 1. The best looking set fails miserably across the board.

Labels: rank and file