Not necessarily those teams, specifically- rather the states in general...
A little more info:
I don't deny for a minute that there are some curious-looking things at the national level- so you folks are certainly right to question it.
There is an important distinction to make between state ratings and national ratings. State ratings are based on thousands of games played within a fairly small set of teams. The data is ample- and as a result, the ratings are accurate. CB and MBA have definitely been the standout teams in TN this year, statistically, whereas no statement like that can made of any team on the national level. The amount of data re: interstate games is much smaller. There aren't any teams that, statistically, are *definitely* the standout teams national- because there isn't enough data to make such a statement. So, the state ratings are more definite- the national ones (how all the states are fit together) are approximations.
Montana and Illinois have both done incredibly well in out-of-state games, particularly in the case of MT. For example (I know everyone will probably make fun of Wyoming too, but I'm gonna use the example anyway)...several mid-level MT teams have blown-out top WY teams. WY has then gone on to do well against other states, etc. Interactions between states determine how the ratings all fit together. Again- however, since we're talking about a small amount of data in some cases, this isn't as accurate as within-state ratings are.
On the other topic mentioned: Losses are not the end-all for the system. If a team loses to a top 5 national team by 1 point, for example, they're showing that they *do* belong on the national scene- not that they don't. This is the problem with polls. There is no such thing as a good loss and no such thing as a bad win in the polls. Beat an 0-7 team in OT- no problem; you keep your spot in the polls until you lose. Ridiculous. (See Ohio State)