Warrior General Games

The stats have been compiled (Or at least, the stats given to me by GLB) and we have our very first BBB League 6 power rankings! These are somewhat informal as they were done with only two games worth of data, but as the season progresses, they should definitely normalize. Without further delay, here they are!

USA BBB League 6 | Power Rankings v1
1] Miami Brawlers (2-0), 6.4
2] Portland Aftershocks (2-0), 5.1
3] Dallas Longhorns (2-0), 3.4
4] Sacramento South Side Psychos (2-0), 3.0
5] Riverside Revolution (2-0), 2.8
6] Las Vegas Flyin' Elvis (1-1), 2.2
7] Chocolate City Cha Chings (1-1), 2.1
8] Georgia Storm (2-0), 1.9
9] Cleveland Gladiators (2-0), 1.8
10] Chicago Storm (2-0), 1.6
11] Atlanta Dirtybirds (2-0), 1.3
12] Seattle Fish n Chips (1-1), 1.2
13] Nashville Crushers (1-1), 0.8
14] Coruscant Death Stars (1-1), 0.7
15] Virginia Hustlers (1-1), 0.4
16] New Jersey Revolution (1-1), 0.2
17] Louisiana Ragin Cajuns (1-1), 0.0
18] Ft. Worth Red Raiders (1-1), -0.1
19] Mid-Pac Warriors (1-1), -0.2
20] Milwaukee Beers (1-1), -0.3
21] St. Paul Shockers (1-1), -0.6
22] Liberty City Convicts (0-2), -0.7
23] Minnesota Lumberjacks (0-2), -0.9
24] Bud Dry Beer Barons (1-1), -1.0
25] St. Louis Assassins (1-1), -1.4
26] College Station Stallions (0-2), -2.0
27] Montana Carnage (0-2), -2.1
28] Houston Wave (0-2), -2.3
29] Phoenix Goons (0-2), -2.5
30] North Carolina Nudists (0-2), -2.9
31] San Francisco Hawks (0-2), -4.3
32] Chicago Commandos (0-2), -5.6

I'll try to do these at least once a week, if not sooner. Enjoy!

Yes number 4 !

nice work man.. hats off to yah...

Atlanta at 11 huh we gotta wins some more i guess

I don't see how we got ranked so low. At #9 when a team we have already beat this season is at #7. But, I am glad that somebody took this on. It will motivate us to move up the ranks.

Originally posted by lostinkorea
I don't see how we got ranked so low. At #9 when a team we have already beat this season is at #7. But, I am glad that somebody took this on. It will motivate us to move up the ranks.

It's based on statistics, and there are only two games played.

Perhaps it was the game you didn't play against the #7 that did it?

Sully - This Rocks! Awesome job, not saying that because we are in first since it has only been two games. However I have been waiting to see something put together that would compare all the teams in the BBB#6 League. Great work!!

Actually, I think your standings are skewed... They should go by Record FIRST listed by Power/Stats.

It just doesn't make sense to put a 2-0 team behind a 1-1 that they've beaten, ya know?

The #7 team shouldn't even be considered... Overall Records should count for much more than you're giving credit. Consider next week >>> IF a team moves to 3-0 BUT a 1-2 is better in the stats >>> Should the 1-2 be ranked higher? Even if they were beaten by the 3-0 team? That isn't a Power Ranking so to speak. That's a Best Stats ranking...

Ya gotta list 'em based on Record, followed by stats... that will give you the proper rankings.

Regardless, NICE WORK man! I'm sure it took a lot of time to put this together. Keep up the good work.

Sweet, my Hawks are dead last!!!!! Only way we can go is up I guess.

Actually, record is one of the statistics factored into the rankings, and I disagree about your stance. If I did what you wanted to do, then we wouldn't have a ranking, we'd just have the league standings, which is already available to you by clicking the "USA BBB #6" link by your player/team name.

It is possible that a team with a lesser record could be better than a team with a higher record, and it could keep happening as the season goes on.

Let's not forget that there are only two games of data to go on. More games need to be played for these to get better.

Originally posted by sully
Actually, record is one of the statistics factored into the rankings, and I disagree about your stance. If I did what you wanted to do, then we wouldn't have a ranking, we'd just have the league standings, which is already available to you by clicking the "USA BBB #6" link by your player/team name.

It is possible that a team with a lesser record could be better than a team with a higher record, and it could keep happening as the season goes on.

Let's not forget that there are only two games of data to go on. More games need to be played for these to get better.

I just don't understand your logic...

Without ranking them by record, you could realistically have an 0-6 team at the top of the chart?

It just doesn't make sense, that's all. Two games or twenty-two games, it doesn't make sense. You have to weigh record into this more heavily than you already are. I could be wrong, I just don't understand how record doesn't mean as much.

Originally posted by Bulldog2811
Originally posted by sully

Actually, record is one of the statistics factored into the rankings, and I disagree about your stance. If I did what you wanted to do, then we wouldn't have a ranking, we'd just have the league standings, which is already available to you by clicking the "USA BBB #6" link by your player/team name.

It is possible that a team with a lesser record could be better than a team with a higher record, and it could keep happening as the season goes on.

Let's not forget that there are only two games of data to go on. More games need to be played for these to get better.

I just don't understand your logic...

Without ranking them by record, you could realistically have an 0-6 team at the top of the chart?

It just doesn't make sense, that's all. Two games or twenty-two games, it doesn't make sense. You have to weigh record into this more heavily than you already are. I could be wrong, I just don't understand how record doesn't mean as much.



It's highly unlikely (As in odds are I'm more likely to be canonized), but possible, yes.

That said, these rankings are a derivation of my NFL power rankings, and your hypothetical has never happened in the 4 years I've done those. Perhaps it's because record is weighed a lot more than you'd like to give credit for?

I agree with the way the power rankings are done. We're ranking the best teams by their potential not by their record. A so so team that plays two crappy teams and wins, isn't better than a good team that lost nail biters to great teams. I agree, the standings show the teams with the best record. This shows which teams have the best squads regardless of the record.

How about if a great team wins two games against good teams. Than their stats wouldn't be as high as the teams that beat easier teams. Which is the case with us. But I am confident that as the weeks go by, we will get the recognition that we deserve. And I know why you agree claylick, cause you got your butt handed to you last week.

You have to love your rankings already. How many rimes have we looked at ESPN's Power Ranking and scratch our heads at their results? Remember guys, this is only TWO games of information. I will bet that as the "weeks" go on you will see that his method for ranking makes sense.