Warrior General Games

Originally posted by jprietman

In my honest opinion...

I would do my WEPL Post-season Power Rankings Top 10 like this (based on all my scouting from this season)

1. Rohrheim Stampede (obviously, right?)
2. Multiple Scorgasms (underrated. Seriously.)
3. Woodridge Lumberjacks
4. Valhalla Vikings
5. Houston Roughnecks
6. NFLUK London Monarchs
7. NFLUK Wembley Warriors
8. Reykjavik Aggies
9. Aggieland Wrecking Crew
10. Valencia Billy Goats (should be tied with Aggieland Wrecking Crew though)


As mentioned, AWC is very deceptive. Wembley was last year's conf champion for a reason, they were just very unlucky this season. Hopefully they can adapt to the changes coming in Season 3. I really do think the LJacks should be #2, Morbo second guessed his tactics and diverted from a winning tactic that, after watching the tape, would of been able to overcome Stampede's defense.

Also, I want a game against the Scoregasms, I want to see what all this hype is about!

Please don't think that just because I have the Scorgasms at #2, that its any kind of slight towards the Lumberjacks.

The Woodridge Lumberjacks are an AMAZING team. 20 some odd wins in a row would tell you that. I'd hate to play them again.

I just really think the Scorgasms are just as good as the Stampede. Their defense (when they are playing seriously) is unbelievable. I have no doubts that they can shut down ANYBODY in the WEPL. Heck, they shut us down. The only reason we won was because we shut them down even more. They didn't get the chance to prove themselves after their turnaround in the middle of the season. They'll have that chance next season, for sure.

Next season is going to be insane....all I have to say

Originally posted by ArthurRiot
It's simple. You decided that the scrimmage matches matter. You saying 'Look, we won in scrimmage matches' counts for as much as me saying 'Look, we have bigger stadiums! that makes us da bestest!'

You just lost. to our number 4 seed team. In 2 seasons, zeta holds 2 championships. your conference just got raped by a team that was AAA last season. But you think scrimmage matches should count?

That sure sounds like crying to everyone but you.

No matter what you say or think, the scrimmage matches matter a whole lot more than who has bigger stadiums because it's pretty much the only thing we have to go off of to determine which conference was better this season. If you would prefer to only look at week 16 + championship game then Alpha still wins. Obviously nobody took the scrimmages as seriously as the regular season, but they're still one of the few measuring tools we have in alpha vs zeta. Additionally, the scrimmage games I think carry more weight than you will give them credit for (which I'm sure you would be on the scrimmage bandwagon if the results were the other way around) because as I've already said, it matches teams up based on their seeding, something the regular season did not do.

I didn't lose. The best team in Alpha just lost to the best team in Zeta. One game does not constitute which conference is better, although it does play a part in it. To act as if the 4 seed has any meaning in the conversation is moronic, just as it would be if I was playing the 'lol your top 3 seeds suck they couldn't beat a team that lost 3 times in the regular season and finished as the 4 seed.' I'll put it as a question to you this time: was every team (4 of them) that was seeded ahead of the Giants in the playoffs last year better than the Patriots? Additionally, to act like the fact that the Jacks came out of AAA carries any weight implies that teams like the Kansas Jayhawks are really good because they're in the pro league. Nobody placed teams in leagues based on their skill to begin with and it is quite obvious the Jacks are a better team on a regular basis than 95% of the pro league.

I claimed that Alpha is the better conference based on the games between the two conferences and you think this is crying? Then you think 1 single game can and should be the determining factor between who is better amongst 2 groups of 16? Yikes...

If you're going to talk about matchups between Alpha and Zeta, you should leave it to Week 16, and the Championship Game.

Scrimmage games = Preseason

A is before Z in the alphabet for a reason people!

But seriously, I don't really care what conference is better.

'Cause I own the best WR in either.

LOL

Originally posted by jprietman
If you're going to talk about matchups between Alpha and Zeta, you should leave it to Week 16, and the Championship Game.

Scrimmage games = Preseason

I think they should count, but just not as heavily as the regular season games, which in turn counts less than the championship. Broken down, the results were as follows:

Alpha vs. Zeta (# of wins)
Championship
0 vs 1

Regular Season
10 vs 6

Scrimmages
40 vs 9

Total
50 vs 16

A further break down of the regular season match-ups showing the seeds (regular season) involved:

Games alpha won:
1 v 7
3 v 9
4 v 10
5 v 14
6 v 11
7 v 15
8 v 12
9 v 8
10 v 1
11 v 16

Games zeta won:
2 v 2
6 v 12
5 v 13
13 v 14
3 v 15
4 v 16

As you can see, the seeds 1-11 of Alpha went 10-1 including 2 upsets. Only seeds 1-6 of Zeta can match that performance. The seed differential for Alphas victories was an average of 3.9, whereas it was 6.5 for Zeta's wins.

Personally I think we should have a point value for the different games that could make this argument moot in future seasons. Personally I would have it 5 points for the champion, 3 points for each regular season victory and 1 point for scrimmage wins. However, I imagine more people would put it at something like 15 for the champion, 5 for regular season and 1 for scrimmage. The results for each of those scoring systems would be as follows:

My point values: Alpha 70 - 32 Zeta

Other point system: Alpha 90 - 54 Zeta

Nobody cares about a point value system.. you keep arguing the same point... we could've won every scrimmage game.. and i could care less about overall results of the regular season games b/c we handle our business... listen to j priet.. scrimmage games = preseason.. by no means em i down playing the opposition we faced in the alpha during the scrimmages but no team would win with the tactics we set.. and until alpha wins a championship.. Zeta is better than Alpha.. ill edit this when I'm sober...

Originally posted by SexualChocolate
Nobody cares about a point value system.. you keep arguing the same point... we could've won every scrimmage game.. and i could care less about overall results of the regular season games b/c we handle our business... listen to j priet.. scrimmage games = preseason.. by no means em i down playing the opposition we faced in the alpha during the scrimmages but no team would win with the tactics we set.. and until alpha wins a championship.. Zeta is better than Alpha.. ill edit this when I'm sober...

Week 16 shows that Alpha is stronger, there was still something at stake and Alpha got the better of the exchanges. So what, Zeta won 1 one-off game? - big deal!

Your argument simply holds no water. It`s like the AFC East claiming to be the strongest league in football last year had the Pats won the Superbowl, when everyone in their right mind knew that it was one of the worst in the league. One strong team does not make the whole conference better, and the standard drops off a lot quicker in Zeta after the top few than it does in Alpha.

And i`ve been very kind with you here in not mentioning the scrimmage games. And yes, EVERYBODY was experimenting with stupid tactics for those games as far as i know, not just the Zeta teams...

Originally posted by Iwan Owen
Originally posted by SexualChocolate

Nobody cares about a point value system.. you keep arguing the same point... we could've won every scrimmage game.. and i could care less about overall results of the regular season games b/c we handle our business... listen to j priet.. scrimmage games = preseason.. by no means em i down playing the opposition we faced in the alpha during the scrimmages but no team would win with the tactics we set.. and until alpha wins a championship.. Zeta is better than Alpha.. ill edit this when I'm sober...

Week 16 shows that Alpha is stronger, there was still something at stake and Alpha got the better of the exchanges. So what, Zeta won 1 one-off game? - big deal!

Your argument simply holds no water. It`s like the AFC East claiming to be the strongest league in football last year had the Pats won the Superbowl, when everyone in their right mind knew that it was one of the worst in the league. One strong team does not make the whole conference better, and the standard drops off a lot quicker in Zeta after the top few than it does in Alpha.

And i`ve been very kind with you here in not mentioning the scrimmage games. And yes, EVERYBODY was experimenting with stupid tactics for those games as far as i know, not just the Zeta teams...



If the match-ups for week 16 had been slotted so that 1 played 1, 2 played 2, etc., then week 16 would carry more weight. The way I see it, the only stat that matters: Alpha 0-18 against Wu Jax (a team that was in AAA last year), Zeta 1-1 against Wu Jax.

Originally posted by jwilliamsii
If the match-ups for week 16 had been slotted so that 1 played 1, 2 played 2, etc., then week 16 would carry more weight. The way I see it, the only stat that matters: Alpha 0-18 against Wu Jax (a team that was in AAA last year), Zeta 1-1 against Wu Jax.


First of all, the fact that you say the Wu Jax were in AAA last year like it means something makes your argument lose most of its credibility. The current average level of starters for the Wu Jacks is 17.833 compared to 15.04 for the Policemen (one of Zetas AAA additions from last year). Nobody placed teams in divisions based on strength before the game started so to act like AAA has any merit is foolish. Ignoring that, your "stat that matters" only proves that Zeta had the best team. Had Alpha gone 0-18 vs the Wu Jax while Zeta went 5-13, for example, then you would have a point. The only thing the 1-1 says is that the best team in Western Europe was in Zeta, which is only 1/16th of the best conference argument.

With regards to week 16, according to seeding Alpha was favored in 8 games, Zeta in 7, and 1 game was an equal match up (2v2). Alpha won every game they were favored in and pulled off 2 upsets, whereas Zeta only won 5 of the 7 games they were favored in plus the equal match up. Because of this, the average seed differential in the games Alpha won was 3.9 compared to 6.5 for Zeta. In other words, Alpha not only won more games but they won the harder ones as well.

Oh, and I will say this which I would expect most people would agree on. I think Zeta has some of the best teams and if you were solely comparing top 5 of alpha vs zeta, I would likely say zeta is stronger. However, the depth in alpha is much stronger (imo) and this is where I give alpha the nod for being the best conference.

Originally posted by DiegoKokomo
Originally posted by jwilliamsii

If the match-ups for week 16 had been slotted so that 1 played 1, 2 played 2, etc., then week 16 would carry more weight. The way I see it, the only stat that matters: Alpha 0-18 against Wu Jax (a team that was in AAA last year), Zeta 1-1 against Wu Jax.


First of all, the fact that you say the Wu Jax were in AAA last year like it means something makes your argument lose most of its credibility. The current average level of starters for the Wu Jacks is 17.833 compared to 15.04 for the Policemen (one of Zetas AAA additions from last year). Nobody placed teams in divisions based on strength before the game started so to act like AAA has any merit is foolish. Ignoring that, your "stat that matters" only proves that Zeta had the best team. Had Alpha gone 0-18 vs the Wu Jax while Zeta went 5-13, for example, then you would have a point. The only thing the 1-1 says is that the best team in Western Europe was in Zeta, which is only 1/16th of the best conference argument.

With regards to week 16, according to seeding Alpha was favored in 8 games, Zeta in 7, and 1 game was an equal match up (2v2). Alpha won every game they were favored in and pulled off 2 upsets, whereas Zeta only won 5 of the 7 games they were favored in plus the equal match up. Because of this, the average seed differential in the games Alpha won was 3.9 compared to 6.5 for Zeta. In other words, Alpha not only won more games but they won the harder ones as well.

If you've read the preceding posts (and I know you have), many teams experimented in week 16, just as they did in the scrimmages. Basically, it's an argument that has evidence on both sides, and that's what makes it fun. But until an Alpha team wins it all (or I get traded to an Alpha team), Zeta is on top.

Originally posted by jwilliamsii

(or I get traded to an Alpha team), Zeta is on top.



Not gonna happen

Originally posted by DiegoKokomo
Oh, and I will say this which I would expect most people would agree on. I think Zeta has some of the best teams and if you were solely comparing top 5 of alpha vs zeta, I would likely say zeta is stronger. However, the depth in alpha is much stronger (imo) and this is where I give alpha the nod for being the best conference.

Scroll back to the very first page and find out that that is what we've been telling you all the time. Zeta's top teams look a bit stronger than Alpha's, and their bad teams look a lot worse.
I don't think one of the 2 conferences is the stronger, but voicing an opinion based upon games in week 16 (when virtually everything in the Zeta conference was allready decided) and scrimmage games is just plain studpidity.