NFL Power Rankings

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rjhenne. Show rjhenne's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]Here are my week 11 rankings: 1      ne      14.9      (last wk. 1) 2      ind      12.1      (last wk. 2) 3      mia      12.0      (last wk. 5) 4      min      11.9      (last wk. 7) 5      no      11.7      (last wk. 8) 6      az      11.2      (last wk. 4) 7      sd      10.8      (last wk. 15) 8      cin      10.8      (last wk. 3) 9      pit      10.4      (last wk. 6) 10      gb      10.1      (last wk. 12) 11      nyj      9.9      (last wk. 13) 12      atl      9.8      (last wk. 10) 13      bal      9.4      (last wk. 14) 14      dal      9.0      (last wk. 9) 15      nyg      8.9      (last wk. 19) 16      phi      8.9      (last wk. 16) 17      hou      8.9      (last wk. 11) 18      car      8.0      (last wk. 17) 19      buf      7.5      (last wk. 20) 20      den      7.2      (last wk. 18) 21      sf      6.2      (last wk. 21) 22      was      5.8      (last wk. 25) 23      jac      5.7      (last wk. 23) 24      chi      5.5      (last wk. 24) 25      ten      5.1      (last wk. 26) 26      sea      5.0      (last wk. 22) 27      kc      4.0      (last wk. 30) 28      stl      3.7      (last wk. 27) 29      det      3.6      (last wk. 28) 30      tb      3.1      (last wk. 29) 31      cle      2.9      (last wk. 31) 32      oak      2.1      (last wk. 32) Frequent readers know that New England has moved up from the middle of the pack and is now pre-eminent in the NFL with nobody else close.  In all this time I have done nothing to influence my particular power ranking formula one way or another since the formula was codified into a spreadsheet.  That's simply the way the stats came out.  Here are the weekly power ratings (out of 16 victories) so far this season, for comparison: team      wk 4      wk 5      wk 6      wk 7      wk 8      wk 9      wk 10      wk 11 buf      6.8      6.2      8.0      8.0      8.3      8.6      7.2      7.5 mia      10.9      10.9      11.3      12.7      13.2      13.2      11.2      12.0 ne      9.8      10.8      14.5      14.5      15.2      15.4      14.8      14.9 nyj      10.8      11.0      10.5      12.1      12.2      12.4      9.5      9.9 cin      6.0      7.6      6.8      9.8      9.8      10.6      11.5      10.8 pit      11.2      12.1      10.9      11.0      10.8      11.1      11.1      10.4 bal      8.4      8.1      8.8      9.3      9.9      8.5      9.2      9.4 cle      4.2      5.0      5.9      5.2      3.9      3.3      2.7      2.9 ind      14.1      13.8      13.1      13.7      11.6      11.7      12.4       12.1 jac      9.6      5.6      3.8      4.0      1.6      3.2      5.8      5.7 hou      7.9      5.9      7.3      8.9      8.9      10.0      10.0      8.9 ten      7.5      5.7      2.0      2.1      2.1      3.7      4.3      5.1 den      7.7      7.8      8.8      9.5      9.2      8.7      8.4      7.2 kc      4.1      4.6      4.5      2.9      3.4      2.3      2.8      4.0 oak      2.6      1.1      2.7      1.6      2.2      2.0      1.1      2.1 sd      6.1      5.8      6.2      7.9      7.4      7.8      9.0      10.8 dal      8.8      8.4      8.1       9.2      11.1      10.9      10.6      9.0 nyg      10.0      11.4      10.1      9.2      8.8      8.1      7.8      8.9 phi      10.6      10.8      8.5      8.7      10.5      10.6      9.0      8.9 was      5.1      6.3      4.6      3.3      4.0      4.5      4.8      5.8 chi      8.6      9.5      9.7      6.0      6.6      4.8      5.4      5.4 det      6.9      7.0      4.9      4.1      2.7      2.4      4.0      3.6 gb      5.4      5.9      8.5      10.1      9.6      9.0      9.8      10.1 min      9.8      10.2      11.3      11.5      11.7      11.3      10.9      11.9 atl      9.9      13.4      13.7      11.4      12.5      11.5      10.4      9.8 car      5.6      5.1      4.5      4.2      7.0      8.7      8.6      8.0 no      12.1      12.3      13.8      13.2      13.8      12.4      10.8      11.7 tb      3.8      4.2      2.4      2.3      3.2      3.6      4.0      3.1 az      11.1      9.2      11.7      12.6      9.8      11.9      11.4      11.2 stl      2.8      2.4      3.0      2.7      2.5      2.3      4.0      3.7 sf      10.2      8.2      8.6      7.2      8.0      7.0      6.9      6.2 sea      7.7      9.7      7.6      7.0      4.7      4.6      6.5      5.1 I’m encouraged that usually a team’s strength doesn’t change much from week to week.   Because the numbers are so steady, when they do change, usually something has happened (good or bad) to the team.   For example, in week 5, Brady was getting his sea legs and the rest of the players (all sorts of talented rookies and free agents) were all getting on the same page.   Denver currently looks like its quarterback recently got injured.   The Jets look kind of injured as of week 10.   Miami took a smaller dip in week 10.   Tennessee looks like its entire defensive backfield got injured for a few weeks but the defense is better now.   San Diego has caught fire lately, going from a 6-10 power ranking to an 11-5 power ranking.   Maybe LT is back on his feet again.  
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    i don't agree with this at all. the patriots barely make the top 10, first place is ludacris. miami isn't in the top 10, how do you get them at number 3.  as much as i dislike denver ranking them at number 20 isn't even close. this one is full of holes.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    Remember that these rankings were last week, not last Thursday night.  Denver had just laid itself down on the tracks waiting for a train to come, and in front of its hometown crowd to boot.  Beating the Gints this Thursday at home, an ok team but not a great team right now, has rehabilitated their image back up to number 18.

    Remember that my stats are blind to QB Orton's return.  Maybe he played a bit rusty against the Giants.

    As for the Patriots, my stats are weighted toward their most recent games.  Their two worst games, the skin of teeth victory over Buffalo and the loss to the Jets, only get about a 35% weighting now compared to their last game.  The last 8 games have more weight.  In the last 5 games especially, the Pats have 2 wipe-it-off-your-shoe blowouts, 2 solid victories over good teams that have had  their own blowouts against weaklings, and one loss where Indy thanked its lucky stars for beating the prevent defense with the Perils of Pauline.  That's why the Pats got such a wicked high statistical rating lately.  Everybody else looks quite mortal these days.

    One possible problem with my Miami statistics is that they are the ultimate gimmick play team.  Almost everybody figures Miami's gimmicks out by the fourth quarter.  I don't know why Miami is ranked so high.  I have to assume it's because Miami is actually pretty good but they keep blowing the close ones.  In any case if Miami can't beat Buffalo (who is also rated as better than their awful record) on Sunday, they give away a division record tiebreaker to the Pats and their season is over. 

    The Bills, it turns out, have played 6 games in a row where they were always in fair to good position at the end of the third quarter.  Two of those tight games then became heavily padded with opponent points at the last minute, and two others were small losses.  That's why Buffalo has a chance to take on Miami despite Miami's high rating.  I'm waiting to see which AFC East team can manage to lose the fourth quarter battle worse than the other team.

    As always, I don't ever factor past win-lost records into my power ratings.  If you want a kissup to every one of the winners and a dump on every one of the losers, try a national sports columnist.  They've learned to be gutless.  Me, I only want to gauge a team's relative strength on the field tomorrow.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]Remember that these rankings were last week, not last Thursday night.  Denver had just laid itself down on the tracks waiting for a train to come, and in front of its hometown crowd to boot.  Beating the Gints this Thursday at home, an ok team but not a great team right now, has rehabilitated their image back up to number 18. Remember that my stats are blind to QB Orton's return.  Maybe he played a bit rusty against the Giants. As for the Patriots, my stats are weighted toward their most recent games.  Their two worst games, the skin of teeth victory over Buffalo and the loss to the Jets, only get about a 35% weighting now compared to their last game.  The last 8 games have more weight.  In the last 5 games especially, the Pats have 2 wipe-it-off-your-shoe blowouts, 2 solid victories over good teams that have had  their own blowouts against weaklings, and one loss where Indy thanked its lucky stars for beating the prevent defense with the Perils of Pauline.  That's why the Pats got such a wicked high statistical rating lately.  Everybody else looks quite mortal these days. One possible problem with my Miami statistics is that they are the ultimate gimmick play team.  Almost everybody figures Miami's gimmicks out by the fourth quarter.  I don't know why Miami is ranked so high.  I have to assume it's because Miami is actually pretty good but they keep blowing the close ones.  In any case if Miami can't beat Buffalo (who is also rated as better than their awful record) on Sunday, they give away a division record tiebreaker to the Pats and their season is over.  The Bills, it turns out, have played 6 games in a row where they were always in fair to good position at the end of the third quarter.  Two of those tight games then became heavily padded with opponent points at the last minute, and two others were small losses.  That's why Buffalo has a chance to take on Miami despite Miami's high rating.  I'm waiting to see which AFC East team can manage to lose the fourth quarter battle worse than the other team. As always, I don't ever factor past win-lost records into my power ratings.  If you want a kissup to every one of the winners and a dump on every one of the losers, try a national sports columnist.  They've learned to be gutless.  Me, I only want to gauge a team's relative strength on the field tomorrow.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    You still haven't explained how the 7-3 Patriots are ranked ahead of the 10-0 Colts who beat them a mere two weeks ago

    You also haven't explained how the 6-5 Dolphins are ranked ahead of the 10-0 Saints who beat them head-to-head four weeks ago.

    And do you HONESTLY believe that the Dolphins could beat the Saints???  Or the Vikings, for that matter?!?!?  Do you seriously believe that the "better" team (the 7-3 Patriots) can lose three more games than two undefeated teams (10-0 Colts and Saints)?  Or that they could lose two more games than the 9-1 Vikings?  Because I don't think it's a coincidence that three teams have better records than the Pats.  I believe that results speak for themselves until proven otherwise (like this Monday night), and I refuse to anoint the Patriots as the "top team" unless and until they vanquish all opponents and hoist the Lombardi trophy.

    Just sayin'.  Your system might be objective, but the results it produces are asinine.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    Indy was losing by 17 points to the Pats at the end of the third quarter.  A real 10-0 team would get out there and either smashmouth or pass like heck and be 17 points up.  I want teams that don't have to roll the dice to win.

    Indy has recently pulled this baloney regularly.  When this was also happening to 6-0 Denver I called Denver out.  Then blammo, all the air came out of Denver for a while.  It wasn't just Orton (although his injury helped), it was the overall talent level.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]I stand by the idea that the first three quarters of play indicates which team is stronger, and the fourth quarter often indicates which teams have a lucky horseshoe up their butts.  "Lucky" might be replicable for a few psychics but demonstrated skill and talent (from the first three quarters of play) is my preferred indicator of future success.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    It also indicates the teams, such as the pats, who can't close out a game.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]Indy was losing by 17 points to the Pats at the end of the third quarter.  A real 10-0 team would get out there and either smashmouth or pass like heck and be 17 points up.  I want teams that don't have to roll the dice to win. Indy has recently pulled this baloney regularly.  When this was also happening to 6-0 Denver I called Denver out.  Then blammo, all the air came out of Denver for a while.  It wasn't just Orton (although his injury helped), it was the overall talent level.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Baloney?!??!

    TEN WINS IS NO F*CK*NG COINCIDENCE.  1-0, 2-0, 3-0, or even 4-0 could be passed off as luck or a hot hand, but by weeks 6-8 the patterns start to develop.  Also, the Colts have the best record this decade (passed the Pats this year), and regardless of "luck" have found ways to win.  I'm as big of a Pats fan as anybody, but the ignorance here is painful.

    Denver is 7-4.  The last time I checked, that's a winning record, and good for the top wild card spot until Jacksonville plays today.  Also, their home field advantage at 5,100 ft elevation is for real.  It's no fluke that the Pats have only won there once in my lifetime.

    Your system is asinine.  The game is played for 60 minutes, not 45, and ten straight wins is no coincidence.  Consider revision.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]Denver is 7-4.  The last time I checked, that's a winning record, and good for the top wild card spot until Jacksonville plays today.  Also, their home field advantage at 5,100 ft elevation is for real.  It's no fluke that the Pats have only won there once in my lifetime. Your system is asinine.  The game is played for 60 minutes, not 45, and ten straight wins is no coincidence.  Consider revision.
    Posted by NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    I'll be the first to say that Denver has the NFL's best homefield advantage, but last Sunday, Denver's home field advantage at 5,100 ft elevation got Denver a 32-3 crushing by their divison rival.  32-3!  No pulse on offense, no pulse on defense.  It's not like the team wasn't up for the San Diego game either. 

    It's not just last Sunday.  The last time I checked, Denver was 1-4 lately.  I want to measure Denver's current playing strength next week, not its old laurels.  If you want to measure laurels, the Providence Steamroller won the NFL championship game in 1922. 

    Having said all of this, Denver isn't a completely bad team.  They're much better than 1-4.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    How about those #3 Dolphins???
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFree93HOF. Show DFree93HOF's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]I stand by the idea that the first three quarters of play indicates which team is stronger, and the fourth quarter often indicates which teams have a lucky horseshoe up their butts.  "Lucky" might be replicable for a few psychics but demonstrated skill and talent (from the first three quarters of play) is my preferred indicator of future success.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Paul, the Pats number one again?  Really?  Really?!?!  Dude that's some fuzzy math.  You're tryin' to tell me that 2+2=5 man.  Your power rankings are junk!!!  You're just a homer that can fudge numbers.  You CANNOT have any credibility when you put a 7-3 team above TWO 10-0 teams.  Not one 10-0 team but TWO!!  I figured I put that out there twice because you don't seem to understand.  One more time Paul, 10 wins are 3 more than 7.  If your "system" doesn't take that into the equation then it's just your OPINION. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFree93HOF. Show DFree93HOF's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]I'm inspired to create my own rankings system. Browns at number one, anybody?
    Posted by the_mexican_leprechaun[/QUOTE]

    That makes as much sense as this guys BS system.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFree93HOF. Show DFree93HOF's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]Indy was losing by 17 points to the Pats at the end of the third quarter.  A real 10-0 team would get out there and either smashmouth or pass like heck and be 17 points up.  I want teams that don't have to roll the dice to win. Indy has recently pulled this baloney regularly.  When this was also happening to 6-0 Denver I called Denver out.  Then blammo, all the air came out of Denver for a while.  It wasn't just Orton (although his injury helped), it was the overall talent level.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    "I WANT TEAMS THAT DON'T HAVE TO ROLL THE DICE TO WIN."  Well Paul, your number one team rolled the dice on a 4th and 2 play and LOST!!!!  You are Fcuking Stupid!!!  Saints #1, Colts #2, Minn. #3.  The Pats are 4th or 5th at best simply because they've lost 3 games this season.  They're good but you can't honestly put them 1st.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccsjl. Show ccsjl's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    LOST on 4th and 2??? EVERYBODY on the planet outside of Indiana knows the pats clearly had the first down...Another Zebra awarded win to the dolts...No wonder manning has to make all these stupid commercials his ref payoffs cost loads of cash!!!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Marcus1973. Show Marcus1973's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    Well ccsjl if the Pats did not waste all their timeouts they would of been able to challenge that call.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from NickC1188. Show NickC1188's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings : "I WANT TEAMS THAT DON'T HAVE TO ROLL THE DICE TO WIN."  Well Paul, your number one team rolled the dice on a 4th and 2 play and LOST!!!!  You are Fcuking Stupid!!!  Saints #1, Colts #2, Minn. #3.  The Pats are 4th or 5th at best simply because they've lost 3 games this season.  They're good but you can't honestly put them 1st.
    Posted by DFree93HOF[/QUOTE]

    Yup.  At some point he'll see the light.

    11-0 is no coincidence.

    Funny thing is, he doesn't count the fourth quarter in his math system, when the Colts have won two games in the past three weeks in the fourth quarter.  He should have no choice but to accept that the Colts find ways to win...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFree93HOF. Show DFree93HOF's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]LOST on 4th and 2??? EVERYBODY on the planet outside of Indiana knows the pats clearly had the first down...Another Zebra awarded win to the dolts...No wonder manning has to make all these stupid commercials his ref payoffs cost loads of cash!!!
    Posted by ccsjl[/QUOTE]


    "Take a look at the scoreboard JoBu. I'm doin' just fine."  Keep on blaming the refs, maybe they'll reverse the final score.....  I was just showing "Paul the numbers fudger" that his statement and his power rankings are bull.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings : I'll be the first to say that Denver has the NFL's best homefield advantage, but last Sunday, Denver's home field advantage at 5,100 ft elevation got Denver a 32-3 crushing by their divison rival.  32-3!  No pulse on offense, no pulse on defense.  It's not like the team wasn't up for the San Diego game either.  It's not just last Sunday.  The last time I checked, Denver was 1-4 lately.  I want to measure Denver's current playing strength next week, not its old laurels.  If you want to measure laurels, the Providence Steamroller won the NFL championship game in 1922.  Having said all of this, Denver isn't a completely bad team.  They're much better than 1-4.
    Posted by Paul_K[/QUOTE]

    Don't listen to these Guys Paul. These numbers work perfectly for me and I'm not going to argue with the numbers because that's a fight that I just can't win.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    I have read about this competing power ranking, that zero losses are better than three losses.  Such a power ranking has merit.  At the very least, the ranking system does have a somewhat limited but far better than zero accuracy at predicting future final scores.  Also, the power ranking system is simple to apply and simple to understand.  Simple. 

    I wouldn't rely completely on this competing method of power ranking to predict, say, the New Orleans/Patriots game on Monday night.  It lacks somewhat for accuracy.

    Next, I'll update my own rankings with Sunday results.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    I like the rankings and not just because the Pats are on top.  As a indicator of which teams would have earned a chance ot the BCS championship it wouldn't work, the Pats just haven't earned it.  But if your definition of power rankings are who is the toughest team to beat at this point in the season it seems like a pretty good guage. 

    Eveybody can see the teams with the best record but that is not usually a good indicator of who is the best team in the playoffs.  Many times the most powerful team is the one who was playing great a few weeks before the playoffs began.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    1  ne  15.3  (last wk. 1)

    2  mia  12.3  (last wk. 3)

    3  min  12.1  (last wk. 4)

    4  ind  11.7  (last wk. 2)

    5  no  11.5  (last wk. 5)

    6  sd  11.4  (last wk. 7)

    7  gb  11.0  (last wk. 10)

    8  cin  10.6  (last wk. 8)

    9  pit  10.6  (last wk. 9)

    10  nyj  10.4  (last wk. 11)

    11  az  10.3  (last wk. 6)

    12  hou  9.8  (last wk. 17)

    13  bal  9.6  (last wk. 13)

    14  dal  8.5  (last wk. 14)

    15  atl  8.3  (last wk. 12)

    16  den  8.2  (last wk. 20)

    17  phi  7.9  (last wk. 16)

    18  nyg  7.9  (last wk. 15)

    19  buf  7.6  (last wk. 19)

    20  car  7.4  (last wk. 18)

    21  sf  7.0  (last wk. 21)

    22  was  6.4  (last wk. 22)

    23  ten  6.0  (last wk. 25)

    24  chi  5.2  (last wk. 24)

    25  sea  4.9  (last wk. 26)

    26  jac  4.9  (last wk. 23)

    27  tb  4.3  (last wk. 30)

    28  cle  3.4  (last wk. 31)

    29  kc  3.3  (last wk. 27)

    30  stl  3.0  (last wk. 28)

    31  det  2.9  (last wk. 29)

    32  oak  2.4  (last wk. 32)

     

    What can I say about Indianapolis?  They got beaten up again by an inferior team for three periods and then they got robbed, robbed I say, by preset impartial statistics.  They sank just a bit to an 11.7 victories (out of 16) power rating.  In an alternative universe all of the referee calls will go against Indy all season, but all of the statistics will flatter them.

     

    In the meantime, Miami played a decent away game for three quarters and then Chad Henne collapsed into a miserable puddle of mud.  As a result, Miami statistically got considerable (possibly unearned, but you can’t completely blame the Miami rookie QB for desperation throwing the last 14 points away) credit for controlling Buffalo.  All the other teams that Miami has recently played (e.g. the Patriots) inherited a touch of extra credit for Miami’s statistical strength.  I’m a bit chagrined that the Pats are pulling further away from Indy and the rest of the league.  Perhaps only a huge statistical discrepancy will force Indy fans to acknowledge a bit of truth in the statistics.

     

    In other news, San Diego has been performing socially unacceptable acts in the bunny patch this Sunday.  The team looks properly guilty about it all.  Anyhow, S.D. is up to 11.4 victories out of 16 if the season restarted tomorrow.  Credit where credit is due.

     

    My stats currently have New England as a 2.7 point favorite on New Orleans home turf.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from gmbill. Show gmbill's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings : Or the fourth quarter indicates which team has the ability to wear down their opponents.  The Saints have outscored their opponents by 81 points in the fourth quarterallowing only 24 points in 10 games while scoring 105.  That does not have the look of a butt secured horseshoe to me.  It has the look of a superior offense and a lockdown defense.  I am sorry, but any "formula" discounting the fourth quarter is statistically invalid.
    Posted by AsylumGuido[/QUOTE]

    Paul K, a team that pulls out a win in the 4th quarter is a strong team who never gives up. This was the Pats in the first superbowl year.

    A team that is ahead in the first half or 3 qtrs and loses in the 4th is a weak team.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFree93HOF. Show DFree93HOF's posts

    Re: NFL Power Rankings

    In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: NFL Power Rankings : Paul K, a team that pulls out a win in the 4th quarter is a strong team who never gives up. This was the Pats in the first superbowl year. A team that is ahead in the first half or 3 qtrs and loses in the 4th is a weak team.
    Posted by gmbill[/QUOTE]

    I'm with you.  How can you put more weight into who's leading after 3 qtrs and not the final score??  How is this a good "system"??  I think it's more his opinion than anything.  He's a Pats fan so that's why the Pats are #1, and his lover Rodrigo is a Cuban guy from Miami hence the Dolphins ranking.  This is the only possible explanation as to why you would put FCUKING MIAMI at #2.  I'm even ok with the Colts being #3 behind Minn.  The Vikes have been playing really well but....... You have to put the Saints #1.  Any power ranking with them not, is just toilet paper to me.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share