- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
gettingold
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | louisiana |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | analyzing nfl football |
| Occupation: | art gallery |
| Number of Posts: | 103 |
| Registered on: | 12/25/2008 |
| Online Status: |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Buddy's Week 7 NFL Rankings
Posted by gettingold on 10/28/09 at 10:53 am to supatigah
Instead of bitching, why don't you decide to learn something?
The week 7 rankings admitted 2 games were too close to call
the rest of the games went 9-2-
evidently that's not worth a shite to tigerinatlanta
does he think the giants being ranked above the cardinals
was wrong when they went out and turned the ball over 4 times?
does he think the bears being ranked above the bengals was wrong?
not if he read my blogs. When the bears played the lions, they cleaned up
on the numbers I measure and that pushed them up the ladder temporarily.
At the same time, the bengals played down to their competition when they
played the lions and gained no points so they didn't rank well.
I have been saying the bengals record was out of order with their
efficiency number and something had to give. This week it did, and they
have moved way up in the rankings for next week.
Why supatigah keeps posting my hobby on your board, I have no idea.
I wouldn't give you the time of day.Seems to be a lot of
tiny little minds encapsulated with emotion with no football
common sense.
The week 7 rankings admitted 2 games were too close to call
the rest of the games went 9-2-
evidently that's not worth a shite to tigerinatlanta
does he think the giants being ranked above the cardinals
was wrong when they went out and turned the ball over 4 times?
does he think the bears being ranked above the bengals was wrong?
not if he read my blogs. When the bears played the lions, they cleaned up
on the numbers I measure and that pushed them up the ladder temporarily.
At the same time, the bengals played down to their competition when they
played the lions and gained no points so they didn't rank well.
I have been saying the bengals record was out of order with their
efficiency number and something had to give. This week it did, and they
have moved way up in the rankings for next week.
Why supatigah keeps posting my hobby on your board, I have no idea.
I wouldn't give you the time of day.Seems to be a lot of
tiny little minds encapsulated with emotion with no football
common sense.
3
re: Buddy's Week 7 NFL Rankings
Posted by gettingold on 10/28/09 at 10:49 am to supatigah
quote:
Posted by SwampDonks on 10/27 at 4:36 p.m.
Another thing I don't like about this blog is that he only picks the obvious games that anyone with a right mind would be able to pick but the games that could go either way, he stays away from.
Which in return is the main way his record of predicting games is so good.
It's an admission that over the years anytime two teams are within 4 slots of each other they end up splitting the wins and losses
re: Power rankings after week 6
Posted by gettingold on 10/24/09 at 8:42 am to supatigah
Posted by rondozombie on 10/22 at 11:48 a.m.
quote:
I realize how your system works, and am starting to drink the denver kool aid, but they wouldnt be favored against the 4 teams directly below them. They were 4 point dogs to the chargers
They weren't 4 point underdogs to the chargers. The betters had to offer 4 points to even up the betting on the other side. They want the betting as even as possible. Has nothing to do with who is favored or by how many points
What I do is not rocket science- I add up where the teams are ranked in stopping the run, running the ball, stopping scoring, scoring, pass defense, and pass offense
I call the difference in rank in any of these areas a team unit. So there is a possible difference between teams of 192
You are right about the Broncos not being favored over the pats,giants,steelers,or colts. There are only 10 tem units difference betweem them.
If you read my weekly matchup blog you will notice I point out that any two teams within 8 points is too close to call because over the years I have found that they usually split the games 50-50.
I also point out that it doesn't matter where the colts are ranked the way I add things up because peyton can beat the system.So their ranking is meaningless.
The same is true of Brady, Brees when he is having a great year, Warner one year, and Favre 1 year.
week 6 means nothing to me- I just want to watch the cream rise to the top by week 17. The top 12 best teams are usually there. It usually gets more and more accurate as the year goes on.
quote:
I realize how your system works, and am starting to drink the denver kool aid, but they wouldnt be favored against the 4 teams directly below them. They were 4 point dogs to the chargers
They weren't 4 point underdogs to the chargers. The betters had to offer 4 points to even up the betting on the other side. They want the betting as even as possible. Has nothing to do with who is favored or by how many points
What I do is not rocket science- I add up where the teams are ranked in stopping the run, running the ball, stopping scoring, scoring, pass defense, and pass offense
I call the difference in rank in any of these areas a team unit. So there is a possible difference between teams of 192
You are right about the Broncos not being favored over the pats,giants,steelers,or colts. There are only 10 tem units difference betweem them.
If you read my weekly matchup blog you will notice I point out that any two teams within 8 points is too close to call because over the years I have found that they usually split the games 50-50.
I also point out that it doesn't matter where the colts are ranked the way I add things up because peyton can beat the system.So their ranking is meaningless.
The same is true of Brady, Brees when he is having a great year, Warner one year, and Favre 1 year.
week 6 means nothing to me- I just want to watch the cream rise to the top by week 17. The top 12 best teams are usually there. It usually gets more and more accurate as the year goes on.
re: Power rankings after week 6
Posted by gettingold on 10/23/09 at 11:36 am to supatigah
someone said I disagree with vegas.
Vegas doesn't have an opinion about which team is better or will win
The pointspread is not the handicapper’s predicted margin-of-victory, but it is in fact the handicapper’s prediction of what number will be required to split the wagering evenly on both teams.He pays the winners with losers money and keeps 10.00 for every 100.00 won. Point spreads are changed to manipulate the bets made one way ot the other- nothing to do with team strenghs in any way.
learn about vegas here LINK
Vegas doesn't have an opinion about which team is better or will win
The pointspread is not the handicapper’s predicted margin-of-victory, but it is in fact the handicapper’s prediction of what number will be required to split the wagering evenly on both teams.He pays the winners with losers money and keeps 10.00 for every 100.00 won. Point spreads are changed to manipulate the bets made one way ot the other- nothing to do with team strenghs in any way.
learn about vegas here LINK
re: Weekly NFL Power Rankings - Week 6
Posted by gettingold on 10/15/09 at 7:43 am to supatigah
Posted by rockchlkjayhku11 on Oct 14, 2009 at 8:00 pm Report Abuse
noooo kudos. the broncos are pretty good. well done there. other than that, there have been serious issues in every rankings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
you are absolutely hilarious saying there are issues with the rankings.
when they run the derby, do you say the announcer has issues when he tells you the position of the horses after the first 100 yards?
where the teams are ranked right now is meangless. It's only posted to let you watch as it changes weekly finally reaching the last week which is the only one that counts.
I do have other measures that indicate that the bengals are not nearly as good as their record shows.
noooo kudos. the broncos are pretty good. well done there. other than that, there have been serious issues in every rankings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
you are absolutely hilarious saying there are issues with the rankings.
when they run the derby, do you say the announcer has issues when he tells you the position of the horses after the first 100 yards?
where the teams are ranked right now is meangless. It's only posted to let you watch as it changes weekly finally reaching the last week which is the only one that counts.
I do have other measures that indicate that the bengals are not nearly as good as their record shows.
re: Weekly NFL Power Rankings - Week 6
Posted by gettingold 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
re: Weekly NFL Power Rankings - Week 6
Posted by gettingold 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.
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 8:14 pm to LSU-MNCBABY
quote:
My Power Rankings After Week 3
getting a little defensive here big dog, did u honestly think posting this would merit you praise and admiration?
The very fact that you think a person could get praise and admiration outside of themselves shows your I Q and generation. 95% of your generation won't qualify as a life form
I was told that there would be some people here who might be interested in some of the different studies I do. Obviously the person was wrong.
I am in the midst of tiny little minds, encapsulated with emotion, incapable of deductive reasoning and totally devoid of common sense.
I won't bother your board anymore.
May all your teams make the playoffs
re: Factor Back!
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 3:33 pm to LSUSportsR4me
quote:
Dumbest term I've ever heard. Merrill Hodge should kill himself. He throws it around constantly. From what I understand, the term can be used for any RB in the league.
that term and him using it all the time is why every program I see him on now gets deleted immediately.
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 3:30 pm to rondo
quote:
You use the rankings of the defense points allowed though.
but that's ranking a team compared to 31 other teams not how many points they gave up against a particular team. big difference
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:59 pm to Ghazi
quote:
Point differential isn't as good a predictor in the NFL though as it is in the NBA. The last team to lead the league in differential and win was the 2004 Patriots. I suppose that comments on the superior parity of the league though, along with best of 1 leading to more luck than best of 7.
I guess if we're judging quality of play though, point differential should be considered.
I never use point differentials. I never use the scores of any games
the numbers are measurement units to show how much separation there is between teams out of a possible 192 total units. Points are not even mentioned.
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:51 pm to rondo
quote:
My Power Rankings After Week 3
You need to figure out a way to account for the fact that a team has played shitty opponents.
I think having a power ranking that doesnt seem accurate until week 9 is for the birds.
my earlier post gave the results for the week
I don't call 12-4 a total waste for the week
and if you have any knowledge of how good the teams are after 2-3 weeks with new coaches, new players, new systems, new coordinators, please tell me
and does it work on horses at the 1/8th mile post?
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:47 pm to bomber77
quote:
quote:
32. Browns 169
No way we should be this high right now. What is the perfect lowest possible number? Thats where we should be.
Mangini sucks
192 :cheers:
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:45 pm to LSU-MNCBABY
quote:
My Power Rankings After Week 3
very good, what did your power rankings for week 17 show last year?
Here are the results of 2007 and 2008 after the 16th week
of each year.Week 17 skews my numbers when teams already in
are resting before the playoffs, and teams already out may
be playing the waterboy.
you can see 2007 was almost a perfect example of the cream
rising to the top.The 12 playoff teams were within my top
13 teams.
2007 results
1. pats 28 division winner
2. steelers 45 division winner
3. colts 46 division winner
4. cowboys 47 division winner
5. jaguars 57 wildcard
6. bucs 61 division winner
7. packers 68 division winner
8. giants 72 wildcard
9. chargers 73 division winner
10 eagles 74
11 seahawks 76 division winner
12 titans 80 wildcard
13 redskins 84 wildcard
13 vikings 84
15 saints 106
16 cardinals109
16 broncos 109
18 bengals 112
19 ravens 113
20 texans 114
21 browns 115
22 jets 124
23 panthers 125
24 raiders 126
25 chiefs 129
26 bears 130
27 rams 133
28 lions 136
29 dolphins 141
30 bills 144
30 falcons 144
32 49ers 158
2008 Results
Not as good as 2007 but that's because of the fight I have
with the nfl.They keep letting weak sisters in because they
won a weak division, and that eliminates stronger teams.I
still think my top 12 has 11 of the strongest teams. Then add
the colts. In my opinion, the pats were stronger than the dolphins,
the chargers and cardinals didn't belong in the playoffs based on
a whole season performance.
1 giants........42 division winner
2 eagles........52 wildcard
2 ravens........52 wildcard
4 titans........53 division winner
5 pats..........59
6 panthers......66 division winner
7 steelers......67 division winner
8 cowboys.......74
8 vikings.......74 division winner
10 bucs..........75
11 redskins......76
12 falcons.......81 wildcard
13 jets..........86
14 saints........87
15 dolphins......91 division winner
16 colts.........92 wildcard
17 broncos.......96
18 packers.......97
19 chargers.....101 division winner
20 cardinals....104 division winner
21 bears........105
22 texans.......106
23 jaguars......108
23 bills........108
25 49ers........124
26 raiders......137
27 browns.......140
28 seahawks.....145
28 chiefs.......145
30 bengals......152
31 rams.........165
32 lions........173
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:20 pm to PBnJ
quote:
Redskins @ 19
give it a break- they did just play the 30th and 31st ranked teams- got some good numbers
I keep telling everyone that the first few weeks will have some silly numbers till the cream rises
some just have no patience
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:17 pm to Eternalmajin
quote:
So, I haven't checked every team (Saints and Ravens mainly thus far), but your "power rankings" are just adding up the Rushing Offense, Rushing Defense, Passing Offense, Passing Defense, Points For, and Points Against rankings of a team and slapping the label "power rankings!" on it?
you are right- and that is just one way to rank teams which works very well. You have a problem with the term power ranking? you would feel better if I called it the royal order of additive mathematics based on 6 parameters ?
There are other things to measure too but the ones I tried haven't added to the accuracy of the rankings each week
re: My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 2:12 pm to rondo
quote:
FALSE
You really need to incorporate point differential rather than just emphasizing points against.
I dont care if your system will work itself out. Denver is not a top ten team, much less the 2nd best.
I have told you before- THOSE ARE NOT POINTS
those are the difference in team measurement units
the broncos are in the top 2 right now because they graded very good against the weak teams they played. the numbers are what they are- want me to change the way I measure teams just because you don't like who is on top
re: ESPN Power Rankings (NO #4)
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 1:26 pm to LSU1215
quote:
ESPN Power Rankings (NO #4)
I havent seen the rankings but im guessing Ravens,Colts,and Giants are ahead of us. I can understand with the Ravens new found air attack and stellar defense still, Colts with Manning still being Manning,and the Giants with a hell of a defense. I cant complain we will prove to all the none believers when we beat the Jets this week and the Giants after the bye week! Go Saints
I just posted my new power rankings on the general board. I have the saints tied with the giants in 3rd place. Ravens in 1st- broncos 2nd because they had two easy games to pad their numbers but that will soon change.
My Power Rankings After Week 3
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 1:22 pm
measure 6 things to develop my rankings. A perfect team
would have 6 power points. The weakest 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 week 3
1. ravens.........39
2. broncos........43
3. saints.........49
4. giants.........50
5. pats...........59
6. jets...........63
7. eagles.........65
8. vikings........68
9. colts..........70
10 cowboys........81
11 seahawks.......83
12 steelers.......87
13 49ers..........90
14 bengals........94
14 chargers.......94
16 packers........96
17 bears..........98
18 titans.........99
19 redskins......101
20 dolphins......109
21 jaguars.......112
22 falcons.......114
23 cardinals.....115
23 bills.........115
25 texans........127
26 lions.........134
27 panthers......138
28 raiders.......139
29 chiefs........140
30 bucs..........152
30 rams..........152
32 browns........169
don't give me any flak about my system being flawed because the broncos are above the saints. That proves it isn't flawed. The broncos had games against two weak teams to get some gaudy numbers. That will fix itself in a couple of weeks and they will find their true level.
would have 6 power points. The weakest 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 week 3
1. ravens.........39
2. broncos........43
3. saints.........49
4. giants.........50
5. pats...........59
6. jets...........63
7. eagles.........65
8. vikings........68
9. colts..........70
10 cowboys........81
11 seahawks.......83
12 steelers.......87
13 49ers..........90
14 bengals........94
14 chargers.......94
16 packers........96
17 bears..........98
18 titans.........99
19 redskins......101
20 dolphins......109
21 jaguars.......112
22 falcons.......114
23 cardinals.....115
23 bills.........115
25 texans........127
26 lions.........134
27 panthers......138
28 raiders.......139
29 chiefs........140
30 bucs..........152
30 rams..........152
32 browns........169
don't give me any flak about my system being flawed because the broncos are above the saints. That proves it isn't flawed. The broncos had games against two weak teams to get some gaudy numbers. That will fix itself in a couple of weeks and they will find their true level.
re: Need Early Line on Dallas @ Denver, please . . .
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 10:45 am to wrlakers
Dallas was a 2 1/2 point favorite favorite last night
re: Week 3 Power Results- Overall 12-4- Anybody's System Beating Mine?
Posted by gettingold on 9/29/09 at 10:39 am to Bum
quote
Looks like you got a good system going.
Thanks Bum- I spend a lot of time on it.
Looks like you got a good system going.
Thanks Bum- I spend a lot of time on it.
Popular
13
