Week 11 Spreadsheet Power Rankings
by KC Viking on Nov 24, 2009 3:29 PM CST
Email
Print
This time, I ranked and awarded points (like fantasy baseball standings) in these categories: W-L%, Point Differential, W% vs. teams that are .500 or better (quality opponents) so far, % of games vs. quality opponents, and then added the # of wins vs. quality opponents. The results may surprise you.
| Tm | W | L | W-L% | W% Pts | PtDif | PD Pts | QW | QL | QW-L % | Q% Pts | QG/10 | QG/10 Pts | Rank Pts |
| 1. Indianapolis Colts | 10 | 0 | 100% | 31.5 | 112 | 29.0 | 6 | 0 | 100% | 31.5 | 60% | 18.5 | 116.50 |
| 2. San Diego Chargers | 7 | 3 | 70% | 27.0 | 64 | 27.0 | 4 | 3 | 57% | 24.5 | 70% | 27.0 | 109.50 |
| 3. Cincinnati Bengals | 7 | 3 | 70% | 27.0 | 48 | 22.0 | 5 | 2 | 71% | 28.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 109.00 |
| 4. New Orleans Saints | 10 | 0 | 100% | 31.5 | 165 | 32.0 | 4 | 0 | 100% | 31.5 | 40% | 5.5 | 104.50 |
| 5. New England Patriots | 7 | 3 | 70% | 27.0 | 126 | 31.0 | 3 | 2 | 60% | 26.5 | 50% | 11.5 | 99.00 |
| 6. Minnesota Vikings | 9 | 1 | 90% | 30.0 | 113 | 30.0 | 3 | 1 | 75% | 29.5 | 40% | 5.5 | 98.00 |
| 7. Baltimore Ravens | 5 | 5 | 50% | 16.5 | 66 | 28.0 | 2 | 5 | 29% | 19.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 92.50 |
| 8. Denver Broncos | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | -13 | 14.0 | 4 | 3 | 57% | 24.5 | 70% | 27.0 | 91.00 |
| 9. Arizona Cardinals | 7 | 3 | 70% | 27.0 | 53 | 23.0 | 3 | 1 | 75% | 29.5 | 40% | 5.5 | 88.00 |
| 10. Dallas Cowboys | 7 | 3 | 70% | 27.0 | 56 | 24.0 | 2 | 3 | 40% | 23.0 | 50% | 11.5 | 87.50 |
| 11. New York Giants | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | 31 | 20.0 | 2 | 4 | 33% | 22.0 | 60% | 18.5 | 84.00 |
| 12. Pittsburgh Steelers | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | 47 | 21.0 | 3 | 2 | 60% | 26.5 | 50% | 11.5 | 83.50 |
| 13. New York Jets | 4 | 6 | 40% | 12.0 | 24 | 18.0 | 2 | 5 | 29% | 19.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 78.00 |
| 14. Carolina Panthers | 4 | 6 | 40% | 12.0 | -46 | 9.0 | 2 | 5 | 29% | 19.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 69.00 |
| 15. Philadelphia Eagles | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | 62 | 26.0 | 1 | 3 | 25% | 15.0 | 40% | 5.5 | 69.00 |
| 16. Tennessee Titans | 4 | 6 | 40% | 12.0 | -63 | 8.0 | 2 | 5 | 29% | 19.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 68.00 |
| 17. Green Bay Packers | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | 59 | 25.0 | 1 | 3 | 25% | 15.0 | 40% | 5.5 | 68.00 |
| 18. Atlanta Falcons | 5 | 5 | 50% | 16.5 | 24 | 18.0 | 1 | 4 | 20% | 13.5 | 50% | 11.5 | 60.50 |
| 19. Oakland Raiders | 3 | 7 | 30% | 7.0 | -126 | 4.0 | 2 | 5 | 29% | 19.0 | 70% | 27.0 | 59.00 |
| 20. San Francisco 49ers | 4 | 6 | 40% | 12.0 | -2 | 15.5 | 1 | 5 | 17% | 11.0 | 60% | 18.5 | 58.00 |
| 21. Houston Texans | 5 | 5 | 50% | 16.5 | 24 | 18.0 | 1 | 3 | 25% | 15.0 | 40% | 5.5 | 56.00 |
| 22. Chicago Bears | 4 | 6 | 40% | 12.0 | -19 | 13.0 | 1 | 5 | 17% | 11.0 | 60% | 18.5 | 55.50 |
| 23. Kansas City Chiefs | 3 | 7 | 30% | 7.0 | -70 | 7.0 | 1 | 6 | 14% | 9.5 | 70% | 27.0 | 51.50 |
| 24. Seattle Seahawks | 3 | 7 | 30% | 7.0 | -37 | 10.0 | 1 | 5 | 17% | 11.0 | 60% | 18.5 | 47.50 |
| 25. Miami Dolphins | 5 | 5 | 50% | 16.5 | -2 | 15.5 | 0 | 5 | 0% | 3.5 | 50% | 11.5 | 47.00 |
| 26. Washington Redskins | 3 | 7 | 30% | 7.0 | -32 | 12.0 | 1 | 4 | 20% | 13.5 | 50% | 11.5 | 45.00 |
| 27. TB Buccaneers | 1 | 9 | 10% | 2.0 | -130 | 3.0 | 1 | 6 | 14% | 9.5 | 70% | 27.0 | 42.50 |
| 28. Jacksonville Jaguars | 6 | 4 | 60% | 21.5 | -36 | 11.0 | 0 | 2 | 0% | 3.5 | 20% | 1.0 | 37.00 |
The bottom 4, of course, are CLE, BUF, DET, and STL which have comprised 40% of the Vikings' schedule so far. If one were to assume that these are exactly correct and that they remain in very nearly the same order at season's end, then 3/4 of the Vikings' schedule will have been vs. the lower half of the league.
It will be interesting to see if Cedric Benson is back for the Bengals by the time the Vikings play them. If not, I'll be doubly excited every time a Viking defender puts a major hurt on that low-life punk named Larry Johnson. I hope that turns out to be a good game in any case because the Vikings definitely need practice playing against a real team or two.
Many thanks to Pro-Football-Reference.com for all of its helpful and fun information.
This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd say you need
to find a way to ding teams for losses against non quality opponents. Cincy losing to the Raiders has to leave a mark if they get credit for beating Pittsburgh twice.
That had crossed my mind,
and you’re right about that. I was going to subtract terrible losses from quality wins and add that total, but I was running out of time today. 1 bad loss and 2 good wins is still a net positive, so I don’t think that it would have changed Cincy’s ranking that much. Also, since I figured that for the entire league, it didn’t seem fair to ding bad teams for losing to other bad teams. Crediting quality wins seemed the more universal and more convenient way. I’m open to other suggestions to properly account for weak losses, though.
It's like the stock market
What’s interesting about this chart is how a team can be affected by the rise and fall of teams they played weeks earlier. For example the Ravens, Steelers and Chargers stand to lose points if the Broncos fall below .500, taking away one of their quality wins. On the other hand if Tennessee can climb above .500 they’ll add a quality win to the Steelers, Colts and Patriots (59-0).
Those may actually be bad examples since that kind of dramatic turnaround for a team doesn’t necessarily reflect on the quality of the opponent a team faced on their Sunday since other factors may have altered the team in the mean time, but it’s interesting none the less.
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Yes
The Vikings will probably lose 2 quality wins when GB disappoints, too. Still, those should be relatively small adjustments since overall W% and PD account for about 45% of the ranking points, provided that the winners continue to win at about the same rate.
That's the exact reason it doesn't work and doesn't make sense
What about injuries?… Beating the Steelers without Polamalu isn’t worth near as much as beating them with him.
Also, beating SF when they were 3-0 and believed in themselves is far different than beating them now.
What about when teams are out of the race and have less desire?
This is why I like the Aikman Efficiency Ratings. It is a far more accurate way to measure who is doing well offensively and defensively than yards or a system like this.
Doesn't make sense?
Of course it makes sense. By your logic, it also doesn’t make sense that some teams start out well and finish poorly and vice versa, yet that is about half of what makes any NFL season great. Injuries sometimes lead to finding better players (Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, Priest Holmes, Tom Brady) or players who turned out to be not much below the level of the injured starter (Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Kevin Boss, Jamaal Charles), so that’s a tough one. As the old saying goes, “injuries are a part of the game” and it holds true.
If you have a suggestion as to how one could rank whether all 32 teams believed in themselves each week or not, then I’m curious to read it/them. Wouldn’t all 32 score highly in that category in week 1?
When a team is out of it and has less desire, they will not count as a quality win. That is accounted for in these rankings.
I will look up the Aikman Efficiency Ratings. Thanks for pointing those out.
yes... doesn't.
And of course it makes sense that some teams start strong and end poorly. Why wouldn’t that make sense? Your statement makes no sense there. I was making the argument that playing the Steelers at full staff is harder than not. Your ranking don’t account for that whatsoever. In other words, if Pitts loses 5 in a row now the teams that played them when they were “SB worthy” get penalized because of the Steelers record at the end of the season. How does that make sense?
Also, PT Diff pts? So beating the Lions by 10 counts the same as beating the Pats by 10 in your system? Doesn’t make sense again.
I like QW%. That makes sense except that you can only play who they put in front of you.
Anyway, that’s my logic on why I feel this doesn’t make sense. If you can argue those points I would like to hear it.
Not the same
If Pitt loses 5 in a row, I think that has more to do with the quality of those opponents than the self-esteem index that you would apparently prefer. If Pitt (or any team) loses 5 in a row to poor teams, then they will also have a lower W%, fewer QW, a lower QW%, and a lower QG% as a result.
Beating the Lions by 10 and the Patriots by 10 is NOT the same in that system because beating the Patriots garnishes a Quality Win plus a better Quality Win% plus a better Quality Game%. It’s a LOT better to beat the Patriots by 10.
Look at the difference between the two 10-0 teams to get a feel for how much better it is to beat a quality opponent, even if the PD is less. Basically, a good team in a bad division should clean up in W%, PD, and QW% while being brought down a bit (but not too much) by QG% and QWs. A good team in a tough division will presumably have a worse W% and PD, but more QWs and higher QW% and QG%.
LOL..
Sorry man, still doesn’t make sense…. You are giving about 1/3 of the ranking to point diff. Whether you beat Det or NE it is still the same points in your system (x 33%).
1/3 of the system I already said I agree with, QW%. No argument there. Maybe this needs to be a higher point %.
I don’t prefer “self esteem index”. I just made the point that beating a team early in the year, let’s say the Bears for arguments sake, is a harder win while they are still in contention than it is once they are emotionally eliminated.
Do the math yourself
Colts had 29 PD points / 116.5 total points = less than 25% affected by PD.
Teams fall out of contention because they weren’t that great anyway (or weren’t deep enough to handle certain injuries). Yes, it could be marginally tougher to beat some teams in week 1 compared to weeks 16-17, but some teams also start poorly and finish strong (the Cards this year, perhaps, or the Vikes last year). If anything, this argument of yours is a perfect reason not to ding teams for losing to bad teams because they were so much tougher when the good team lost to the bad team. Beating up on such teams does not help a team’s ranking in this system as much as beating a quality opponent by a smaller margin, and as long as a good team with a soft schedule can win the games they’re supposed to win plus most of the quality opponents, that team will be reflected positively in these rankings.
Ok
I did. So for the Colts it is 25% of the total score which still makes my point. Point differential isn’t that important on who is the best team….
What about when the Vikings jumped out 28-3 on Seattle and then put in TJack? Game ends 35-9. Now, if Brett stays in the game is more likely 40+.
What about when teams go into prevent to run out the clock? They give up points that aren’t important and that makes a difference in your ranking. How is that an accurate way to measure the strongest team?
I am glad you see the point I made about beating a team in week 1 versus week 17, or something similar.
It would probably help to also measure teams in ther last 3 games at a higher % than in older games because teams who are peaking are more likely to move on in the playoffs.
More math
Let’s suppose that a given game could have had an extra TD in it were it not for giving a backup some garbage time. There is a 13 point gap between the Vikes and Patriots, having no effect there. In other cases, it may mean 1 more point in these standings which would usually have no effect or move a team into a tie for the next spot.
All teams play games in which someone is running out the clock. Since these are not isolated incidents which only affect 1 team, they effectively cancel each other out.
There is no real point about a bad team playing well and being a tougher win early vs. week 16. Team A who is victorious vs. that bad team in week 2 and Team B who beats that bad team in week 16 each beat an irrelevant opponent, and the rest of their schedules would bear out how good each team is at the end of the season. So why go to so much trouble of creating a self-esteem/personality test for events that have no real impact?
Again, I think that teams peak and valley according to the quality of their opponents on their schedules most of all, so I wouldn’t care about 3 games vs. cupcakes for a few teams while some pretty good teams lose 1 or 2 to quality opponents.
Well
According to this system Nebraska would have won 10 straight NCAA championships back in the day. Of course, that didn’t happen….
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 10:21 PM CST up reply actions
Not true
Almost all conferences play their own teams which means they play 10-2 teams, 9-3 teams, 8-4 teams, etc. all the way down to the bad ones.
It would even out for almost all teams except a select few like USC who plays tough teams out of division to make a harder schedule.
Again, this is an example of how poor point diff is, that’s all. It does have a small play in calculations, just no where near 25-30%.
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 10:37 PM CST up reply actions
Depending on when you're calling back in the day
KU was awful, KSU was good in the Snyder years, but never great and TERRIBLE before he got there, Iowa State was awful, Colorado and OSU were only ok, MU was nothing special, leaving OU as the only consistent competition.
Besides, the BCS rankings (which include PD in a much more diverse league) could only put NE in a game they didn’t deserve to lose if what you’re saying is true. But they won 3 titles in Osborne’s time there, so again your example doesn’t exemplify what you’re trying to argue anyway.
They played their conference...
….top to bottom. OU all the way down. This was the same as other conferences with the exception of those select few teams who played the best they could in their out of conference games.
It doesn’t really matter when. Nebraska was just an example that the system you suggested is is flawed by the point diff. You could use BYU in some years. Houston in others, etc.
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 10:53 PM CST up reply actions
Regardless of the team
the BCS did not give them a Championship, as you’d said. Some of those teams lost the bowl games they earned through the BCS, and the ones that won earned it by winning the game.
There was no BCS
Geez…. Let me spell it out. These teams scored a lot and won nothing! Rankings meant nothing especially the points they scored versus what they gave up.
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 11:02 PM CST up reply actions
Don't get me wrong...
I like the topic. I just think, IMO, that there are things that could help lead to a more accurate ranking system than what are typically used. Especially point differential because that is very misleading. Things like:
1) Quality wins
2) Home wins vs. strength of opponent
3) Road wins vs. strength of opponent
4) Injuries
5) Recent trend (perhaps most recent 4 games)
5) Opponent rankings when played
Epic reply thread
This is the narrowest I’ve ever seen a reply thread get on this message board. I’m honored I started it.
I wrote my proposed solution farther down called, “Bracketing” if you’re interested.
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Same here
I like the theory but how do you translate that into weekly rankings without the wait?
I mentioned the AER above. It seems to be far more accurate than the typical yardage stats. I like to take the offensive rank and add it to the defensive rank and come up with a total. I then use that total to rank the teams. here is what that looks like as of the latest AER:
1) Saints
2) Colts
3) Vikings
4) Steelers
5) Patriots
6) Bengals
7) Ravens
8) Eagles
9) Dolphins
10) Packers
11) Cowboys
Aikman
I do like the AER over most systems, especially DVOA, I just wish he had kept posting them on his website because I’m not going to hunt down the data to calculate it. It would have been nice if the league had adopted AER when he suggested it to the competition committee years ago.
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Good things come...
I was thinking about all the ranking systems and none of them really make sense in the first few weeks of the season. It’s too early to tell who’s on their way up and who’s on their way down from last season. So I don’t think waiting 4 weeks is unreasonable for putting together a credible ranking system.
For the following games just use the data you have after each bracket. In week 5 take the score from the first 4 weeks and then add it to the score for week 5. Week 6 average it with the previous week and add that to the first bracket, etc.
All that said it looks like your simple system above is pretty accurate, although it still has the Steelers 2 places above the Bengals, which seems suspect, but could be right.
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Systems
There are so many ranking systems I see and hear about….I generally have a look see at all of them, then using my own judgement (NOT necessarily unbiased), come to some kind of conclusion…
Having said that, not sure any of them make a difference when for example we are talking one week, one game…Either we beat Chicago or not, for example…
The rankings provide indications, and marrying many together and coming to some kind of conclusion helps, but still the old “any given Sunday…” comes into play….
Is good for jawing about the who what where etc. though and entertaining for us die hard fans…Right now my gut is telling me we have a pretty darn good team!
I also have that feeling that we can go further this year than we ever have…meaning not only can we get to the SB, we have a decent shot at winning…
In earlier SB appearances, the tide has always gone against us….and the balance and weapons we have this year equal or surpass the earlier teams that have been in the SB…
This year may (hopefully) THE year! Wouldn’t THAT be great? Of course then we will have to put up with GB and Bear fans letting us know how many more they have won….wait a sec, we have to now right!?
GO VIKES!
I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...
by vikingfanfrom afar on Nov 26, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
This is a great Vikings team
The real question is whether the pass defense is strong enough to stop playoff calibre teams from scoring. The 1998 team wasn’t strong enough in that respect. They were about 1 defensive player away. I have not been impressed with how the passing D has handled weak teams so far, but of course I hope that they miraculously turn it around in the remaining regular season and postseason games this year.
AER
has the same problem. YPC favors teams that play lots of close games by not having so many kneel-downs and rushing attempts when the D knows that a run is coming. YPPA does not reward short passing schemes very much. Instead of PD, he uses total offensive points scored which has the same what ifs that PD does in terms of backup QBs playing in garbage time, kicking FGs to keep a lead instead of going for TDs, etc. Then he reverses the 7 categories in terms of defensive performance in the same areas, effectively counting PD (points scored and allowed).
It is just more accurate
There is no perfect system. I think we all know that. If there was, we would all own Vegas.
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 10:40 PM CST up reply actions
Find a way to rank
based on how opponents were playing when the ranked team played them. For example, the 49ers were 2-0 when the Vikings played them. Baltimore was 3-2. Etc.
When SF played MN, they had beaten the Cards by 4 and beaten SEA by 13. Since those went into the PD, that is somewhat reflected. How to treat the Cards, though? They had lost their last game of the previous season (the SB) and got off to a poor start this year (probably not counting as a Quality Win going into week 3), but they count as a Quality Win nonetheless at this point. Whoever played a team like that in week 2 would be cheated of a Quality Win.
Also, it creates other problems: Should Chiefs should count as a quality opponent for the Steelers only? Should Seattle count as a quality opponent for SF only since SEA was 1-0 going into week 2? The Chiefs-Steelers example would reward good teams for losing to bad teams since obviously those bad teams must have been exceptionally good to beat them on those days. The SEA-SF example could move another 4-6 team into the top half of the standings after getting credit for a game vs. a 3-7 team.
Bracketing
I think the only way you could reflect the changes that affect a team over the year is to use a bracketing system when determining the quality of opponents.
So use this same system through the first 4 games and lock the final value. Then the same for games 5-8, 9-12 and 13-16. After each subsequent bracket finishes (you’d have to wait 5 weeks to even out the bye weeks) you’d get the final score for that bracket and add the previous score to it.
It’s an arbitrary division of time, so obviously it’s not perfect, but it should cut down on the effect of dramatic team turnarounds like the Broncos or Tennessee this year.
What do you think?
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Interesting idea
Still, it doesn’t solve for the problem of bracketing a team one way earlier in the season for having an especially tough or weak first however many games. The NFL schedule is purposely constructed to give last year’s stronger teams this year’s tougher schedules. Look at TB. They were a playoff team last year, so they are in the top tier in quality games with 7/10. With a weaker schedule, they probably wouldn’t be 1-9.
With bracketing, MIN would get extra credit for barely beating SF just because SF had beaten some bad teams before week 4, and some other good team that beat SF wouldn’t get as much credit for being the 2nd or 3rd good team to defeat SF. The Broncos would not have been credited with beating a good team when they defeated CIN in week 1 because the preseason expectations of the Bengals were so much lower than their performance has been this year. It would effectively coddle a genuinely good team like MIN to count a team like SF as a quality win for beating them early on and penalize other good teams (who may be even better) for facing SF later on.
Although PD isn’t perfect, it would be a better indication of how 3 good teams played SF than crediting some good teams for beating SF, but not other good teams which beat SF. The fact that the Vikings had the lowest PDs vs. DET last year (and the 12th PD for the season) was a harbinger that they weren’t likely to beat a good team in the playoffs.
I think that dramatic turnarounds are earned in the NFL, mostly through the level of competition faced. I don’t think that DEN has had a dramatic turnaround just yet, either. They were a winning team for 6 games, and they are still a winning team after 10 games. The fact that they lost 3 of the last 4 games to quality opponents after beating 4 of 4 quality opponents earlier still points at them being a winning team which has only lost 1 game to an weaker opponent, and that happens. A 4-game losing streak doesn’t mean that they are doomed any more than the 6-game winning streak never meant that they were destined to continue on that path. Look at these rankings again. JAX is a winning team, but this system ranked them way down at 28th. There are losing teams in the upper half and winning teams in the lower half. That’s not to say that this system is perfect, but I’ll never believe any power ranking system that doesn’t have at least a couple winners in the lower half and a couple losers in the upper half because the NFL is not static. Past wins and losses simply do not guarantee future wins and losses.
One could say that TEN took some time to learn to play without Haynesworth plus benefitted from the QB change. But they also played 5 of their first 6 games vs. quality opponents, and only 2 of the next 4 vs. quality opponents (JAX and HOU at that, 2 of the weakest quality teams). Their schedule was going to be tough after going 13-3 last year, and a continued turnaround is possible with a new QB, but less likely with 4 out of 6 quality opponents left on their schedule.
Also, that would be a lot of work. If I was getting paid to do power rankings, I would definitely take other factors into consideration, but probably not quarterly performance just because of the nature of the NFL schedule’s design. I appreciate the suggestion, though.
That makes sense
But I still don’t like point differential as that high a %.
by PurpleJesus on Nov 24, 2009 10:03 PM CST up reply actions
Diff
Teams play diff?We play 6 out 16 games in con,those are never a gimme,cause of the way it is any given day.Same with outside the con.49ers played us to the last min,they did the same with G.B. last week.There aint no quitt in those 49ers but on paper they suck.But all in all a few good Ref calls and 49ers in race for play -offs,you cant clarify by numbers human emotion,otherwise we would all be job less cause robots would have our job.You cant equate human drive thru numbers.
This is flawed...
mainly because your definition of “quality opponent” is relative to the present.
For example, if all the teams Indy has played so far were to lose the rest of their games and end up below .500, Indy’s rank would become lower even if they didn’t play another game.
To the contrary, if teams Minnesota has played that are currently below .500, were to win the rest of their games and finish above .500, the Vikings would move up.
in that same vein
we played SF when they were playing well, they were a quality opponent. same for ravens. Now somehow I guess they are not.
also, your rankings i’m guessing are distorted by counting the games against an opponent in the opponent’s W-L. FOr example, look at GB. You exclude the two games the Vikings beat them, they are 6-2 …
"We played SF when their self-esteem was higher"
The Vikings were supposed to be a lot better than SF anyway. The Vikings were better last season (playoff team vs. non-playoff team). The Vikings improved in the offseason more than the Niners, who didn’t even have their 1st round draft pick signed at that time! SF was never considered a contender because they are and were a poor team (on the mend, but a poor team in a weak division nonetheless).
If you remove good teams from GB’s record, then you are coddling the Packers. If GB is any good, they should have a winning record just from playing DET and CHI and .500 vs. everyone else after removing games vs. good teams. But the point of these rankings is to determine who is a product of an easy schedule vs. who has done well despite a tougher schedule and how dominant teams have been.
The rankings have their flaws, but so does your analysis.
Quality opponents are determined in the present based on recent performance by a few standards.
Are you sure that it’s possible for all of IND’s past opponents to lose the rest of their games? Usually, that is not the case, especially since division rivals have to beat each other. Even tying the rest of their games would not lower their W-L%. There are 2-3 IND opponents who could finish as losers, but in their next 6 games, they are are likely to gain just as many from other teams like TEN making apparent turnarounds. Also, if IND loses a few games, that will bring them further down to Earth, of course.
If MIN’s teams currently under .500 won out, that would include some wins vs. the Vikings (2 losses to CHI, and 1 win for CAR for example). The Vikes would move down, not up, for losing twice to CHI and once to CAR, and that would offset any gain from the Seahawks and Niners almost winning out (they can’t since they play each other)…which would take away 2 quality wins from GB, also. SEA and SF would be brought down by losing to STL and DET, also teams that you say could win out (but can’t because those teams play each other). Many of the teams below .500 on the Vikings’ schedule (STL, CLE, DET, DET) are so terrible that they would not be winners if they won out, even if they could.
It seems like you want to create a "BCS computer ranking" for pro football too
And a very simplified BCS-style calculation at that.
I guess I question why anyone would want that.
A big difference
This ranking system is just for fun, it doesn’t determine who gets to play in the Super Bowl.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the BCS computer ranking system’s formula, just that no system can take intangibles into account and therefore shouldn’t be used to exclude any group from benefits they might receive if they were allowed to compete for them freely.
A good coach makes his team better, he doesn’t wait for a better team to make him look good.
Here's the problem
You can’t really state this is a fair system. Mostley because a team can’t pick their schedule and their schedule is not influenced by how well they play. So you could have the 75 Vikes, one the th SB winning Montana teams whatever, and just because they played poor quality opponents (of which there are a ot of in the NFC). You put points against in the equation as well as points for, but I don’t know if it’s running at the correct rate. To do a better job you’d have to compare teams that have played the same teams together based on that. Also taking into account injuries etc…
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Daily Norseman
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
