Warrior General Games

They are up and ready to go!

http://sports-boards.net/lumberjacks/powerranks.html

I know I know its stat based but its so flawed when Chicago just lost to the Nudists and is still 5 spots higher with the same record...not to mention beating 3 playoff teams in a row with the longest win streak in the conference

But all the same keep up the good work

Also for the record, Choco City is 6-2 not 7-1

All together now before someone else says it...

"Head to head match-ups don't affect the stat-based power-rankings"

But I was going to whine about the same thing. We really need a better way of ranking the teams.

Originally posted by keith_dude
All together now before someone else says it...

"Head to head match-ups don't affect the stat-based power-rankings"

But I was going to whine about the same thing. We really need a better way of ranking the teams.

Exactly. Case in point:

Nudists beat Storm, so Nudists must be higher
Revolution beat Nudists, so Revolution must be higher
Storm beat Revolution, so Storm must be higher

So Nudists > Storm, Revolution > Nudists, and Storm > Revolution

We have a problem, as you can see. This is a contradiction because the Storm cannot be ranked higher and lower than the Nudists at the same time. Thus, head to head is an inherently flawed argument to use as a barometer for the effectiveness of the power rankings.

Besides, if that was the case, is it realistic to say the Storm, who already lost a spot in the rankings, should also drop 5 more spots just to satisfy some ballyhooed head to head notion? I think not.

There should be points awarded based on the quality of your opponent. You beat a good team you get more points than beating a bad team. A top ranked team gets beat by a bad team they lose points, sorta like the BCS rankings. This does not work well early in the season but at this point it makes sense.

Originally posted by tciss
There should be points awarded based on the quality of your opponent. You beat a good team you get more points than beating a bad team. A top ranked team gets beat by a bad team they lose points, sorta like the BCS rankings. This does not work well early in the season but at this point it makes sense.

Considering we are all playing the same opponents, I'm not going to advocate "strength of schedule" or "quality of opponent" for my rankings. I believe I addressed this last year also. The basis of my thought process is that an average team will probably beat a lesser team. They'll get points for a win as well as the appropriate increase based on performance. A dominant team should not only beat a bad team, but whip them pretty good. They'll get the points for a win, but the gain for them will likely be much higher because of the better performance overall. In theory, it addresses the quality of opponents issue, just not in a way people like to see.

True, you do a good job with the rankings, besides the only real way to know who is truly the best is to win it all.

I think win streaks should be taken into account some, a team real hot should move up some more...Maybe like use the last 3 games stats as more of a percentage when you are figuring everybody...Of course I am being a little bias, maybe alot but its an idea nonetheless...

I dont want to sound like I'm complaining or anything, you do a great job, more then I would do just simply making a suggestion, keep up the good work

The NCAA has been trying to figure out how to award their mythical national championship for years. One thing they do is to count a loss as more important the more recent it has been. Thus, if a team beat another team in week 1...it's possible to be ranked higher than them 6 weeks or 8 weeks later depending on who they play in that time span.

This isn't a nationally sanctioned event. Appreciate it for what it is.

Present your own power rank otherwise. (a coaches/owner poll would be interesting but may be hard to get all ballots in for each week)

Originally posted by pyr8t
This isn't a nationally sanctioned event. Appreciate it for what it is.

Present your own power rank otherwise. (a coaches/owner poll would be interesting but may be hard to get all ballots in for each week)

We tried an owners/coaches poll last year, but that quickly fizzled out. I guess we're stuck complaining about my ranks.

You suck Sully, but you haven't mastered the gag reflex so I am disappointed.

Come on Sully...would you expect less?

Thanks for what you do--it is nice to see the rankings...even if we do whine a lot.