- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Weekly NFL Power Rankings - Week 6
Posted on 10/14/09 at 9:43 am
Posted on 10/14/09 at 9:43 am
I measure 6 things to develop my rankings. A perfect team
would have 6 power points. The worst team would have
192. It usually starts off wacky but the cream seems to
rise to the top as we move from week to week. They are bunched
up in groups right now. That's because the cream hasn't had
enough games to rise to the top yet.I have every confidence that
it will as we move along. It has for years.
These are the new rankings after the week 4 games.
For those who don't understand, any team above would
currently be favored over any team ranked below them.
ranking after week 5
1. giants.......35
2. saints.......39
3. broncos......54
4. eagles.......58
5. colts........59
6. ravens.......63
7. vikings......68
8. steelers.....69
9. seahawks.....73
10.pats.........79
11.cowboys......80
12.dolphins.....85
13.jets.........88
13.falcons......88
15.bengals......93
16.bears........95
17.packers.....100
18.cardinals...103
19.redskins....104
20.49ers.......107
21.chargers....108
22.texans......111
23.titans......116
23.bills.......116
25.jaguars.....126
26.panthers....133
27.lions.......134
28.browns......142
29.rams........150
30.bucs........157
31.chiefs......159
32.raiders.....163
would have 6 power points. The worst team would have
192. It usually starts off wacky but the cream seems to
rise to the top as we move from week to week. They are bunched
up in groups right now. That's because the cream hasn't had
enough games to rise to the top yet.I have every confidence that
it will as we move along. It has for years.
These are the new rankings after the week 4 games.
For those who don't understand, any team above would
currently be favored over any team ranked below them.
ranking after week 5
1. giants.......35
2. saints.......39
3. broncos......54
4. eagles.......58
5. colts........59
6. ravens.......63
7. vikings......68
8. steelers.....69
9. seahawks.....73
10.pats.........79
11.cowboys......80
12.dolphins.....85
13.jets.........88
13.falcons......88
15.bengals......93
16.bears........95
17.packers.....100
18.cardinals...103
19.redskins....104
20.49ers.......107
21.chargers....108
22.texans......111
23.titans......116
23.bills.......116
25.jaguars.....126
26.panthers....133
27.lions.......134
28.browns......142
29.rams........150
30.bucs........157
31.chiefs......159
32.raiders.....163
Posted on 10/14/09 at 9:47 am to supatigah
i am not going to blast you buddy, but you really should consider a W/L component in your formula.
for instance, how the bengals are behind the steelers and the ravens considering they beat both of them and have a better record is mind boggling.
for instance, how the bengals are behind the steelers and the ravens considering they beat both of them and have a better record is mind boggling.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 9:53 am to rocket31
he chooses to solely rank the team's cumulative statistical performance and not factor their wins and losses
that is his choice
that is his choice
Posted on 10/14/09 at 9:58 am to supatigah
Given the potential for gambling I would say the only aspect that is ignored that could weigh heavily is home/away.
For instance he has the Giants a little better than the Saints...but the game will be in NOLA.
For instance he has the Giants a little better than the Saints...but the game will be in NOLA.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:05 am to rondo
yeah I was looking at that and i have been working on adding a home/away and w/l component to the calculation after week 6 to see how it stacks against the spread.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:05 am to supatigah
quote:
yeah I was looking at that and i have been working on adding a home/away and w/l component to the calculation after week 6 to see how it stacks against the spread.
that will be interesting.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:07 am to supatigah
So is it safe to base our Survivor picks on your rankings?
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:08 am to bwallcubfan
i have been doing that and also using the spread and I am doing ok so far
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:09 am to supatigah
at this point, I think I probably agree with that list.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:14 am to supatigah
I've been wondering how it would look if you weighted the scores instead of using just integers. For example, a perfect team stll gets 1 point for being the best in a category and the worst team is set to 32, but then if two teams are very close in that statistical category they could get 1 and 1.2 respectively, instead of 1 and 2. Wouldn't be hard to do and might bunch teams closer together at the top and bottom.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:19 am to supatigah
dolphins ahead of falcons

Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:29 am to The Easter Bunny
quote:
but then if two teams are very close in that statistical category they could get 1 and 1.2 respectively, instead of 1 and 2. Wouldn't be hard to do and might bunch teams closer together at the top and bottom.
hmmmmm run it and post it
Posted on 10/14/09 at 10:42 am to supatigah
The Chiefs are going to bitch slap the shite out of the Redskins this week. 
Posted on 10/14/09 at 11:01 am to supatigah
quote:
9. seahawks.....73
10.pats.........79
quote:
15.bengals......93
Posted on 10/14/09 at 2:42 pm to supatigah
Hey Rocket-Since you decided not to blast me like others do who don't have a damn clue
as to what my purpose is, I will give you an explanation and try to
unboggle your mind.
Your suggestion that I use a w/l element would skew everything since it's
meaningless to my purpose.
First let's look at purpose- For years I have played with methods of coming
up with what I consider the strongest 12 teams after having played 16 games.
The method I use right now has been very accurate in doing that.
I couldn't care less about the accuracy of the method in week 6 or any other week.
I never bet on a game, and never will. Who wins this week is fine with me.
I have no favorite team, and no bias toward anybody. So I can just add up the
numbers with no emotion of any kind.
So if you want a perfect ranking this week I suggest you use your own method
and add whatever things you want. Yours will probably be more accurate than
mine and your methods are probably better.
I can tell you that you will have trouble beating the method I use in the end
based on years of results.
you go ahead and use w/l and I will pass on that.
the broncos win a game with an impossible deflection of a pass
a team gets mauled all day and in the last minute gets an interference
call on the 1 and wins the game.
one team starts their schedule with 4 bottom feeders, and another one
plays two A teams and two B teams-
you really think any of these wins should enter in to evaluating the
strength of a team? Not for my purpose, but maybe for those who gamble.
as to what my purpose is, I will give you an explanation and try to
unboggle your mind.
Your suggestion that I use a w/l element would skew everything since it's
meaningless to my purpose.
First let's look at purpose- For years I have played with methods of coming
up with what I consider the strongest 12 teams after having played 16 games.
The method I use right now has been very accurate in doing that.
I couldn't care less about the accuracy of the method in week 6 or any other week.
I never bet on a game, and never will. Who wins this week is fine with me.
I have no favorite team, and no bias toward anybody. So I can just add up the
numbers with no emotion of any kind.
So if you want a perfect ranking this week I suggest you use your own method
and add whatever things you want. Yours will probably be more accurate than
mine and your methods are probably better.
I can tell you that you will have trouble beating the method I use in the end
based on years of results.
you go ahead and use w/l and I will pass on that.
the broncos win a game with an impossible deflection of a pass
a team gets mauled all day and in the last minute gets an interference
call on the 1 and wins the game.
one team starts their schedule with 4 bottom feeders, and another one
plays two A teams and two B teams-
you really think any of these wins should enter in to evaluating the
strength of a team? Not for my purpose, but maybe for those who gamble.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 2:58 pm to supatigah
quote:
The worst team would have 192
quote:If the Raiders are only 163 I'd hate to see 192
raiders.....163
Posted on 10/14/09 at 7:25 pm to supatigah
the worst I have encountered was last years Lions at 172
it's just difficult to come in last in every category measured
it's just difficult to come in last in every category measured
Posted on 10/14/09 at 7:29 pm to gettingold
btw kudos to your system... you got blasted for your broncos placement and it turns out they might just be legit
Posted on 10/14/09 at 8:00 pm to baytiger
noooo kudos. the broncos are pretty good. well done there. other than that, there have been serious issues in every rankings.
Posted on 10/14/09 at 8:38 pm to gettingold
quote:
the broncos win a game with an impossible deflection of a pass
The team that lost on this fluke (the Bengals in their only loss) is the team that he uses in questioning the logic behind your rankings....
Popular
Back to top


9







