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


    This shows how stupid the power rankings are...

    USA Today has the Patriots at #5 with San Diego, Colts, Eagles and Saints ahead of them in that order. ESPN has the Patriots #10 with Colts, S.D., Saints, Eagles, Vikings, Arizona, Cinci, G.B., and Dallas ahead of New England.

    USA is closer to reality then ESPN ever thought of being and that is not a homer talking here.  ESPN's coverage wants to make me throw up.  

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from csylvia79. Show csylvia79's posts


    The list is bogus when cinci is ahead of the Pats.

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pymus1. Show pymus1's posts


    The more disrespect the Patriots have gotten over the years the better they have sizzled their opponents and the sports writers in the past. When they were number one all the way look what happened. Personally I love it. Hope they keep piling on. Hope they make golden boy Peyton have to live up to his reputation. Everytime they do he lays an egg. We know McNabb and Romo cant live up to the hype either and now Breeze seems to be falling in behind them.

    Id love a match up in the SB between Brady and Farve. See the old bum Diva get smoked as pay back for 1995.
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts


    USA today has the Chargers at #1
    Espn at #2

    I wonder if that idiot Colin Cowherd (coward) on sportsnation has watched SD lately? 
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts


    Power rankings are fodder for discussions.  Everyone has an opinion.  Arguably the best team is not necessarily always voted #1 usually because of a bad game or two. 
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts


    Jeff Sagarin states that his USA Toady ratings carry a 50% politically correct factor, The team with the most victories has the highest rating in the "chess" portion of his ratings, which Sagarin states isn't good at predicting power rankings.  The Pats are 5th in his "chess" ratings, but #1 in the NFL by a nifty lead in his "pure points" ratings, for an average of 3rd overall. 

    My power rankings are 100% based on pure point differential, with compensation for blowouts, and with a what-have-they-done-lately weighting.  Not only are the Pats in first place, but by the numbers it's a long way down (14-2 vs. 12.7-3.3) to second place.  The Patriots have lately been a consistently scary team that a few rivals have been grateful to survive, while the 8-6 Jaguars crash and burn.  That's who I expect to show up in a week and a half.

    The ESPN power rankings are strictly arranged by victory count, although the Pats are at the bottom of their 10-5 group.  98% politically correct.  The Pats appear to be rated below both NFC wild card leaders.  Precious little information is given to argue about.
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MaritimePatsFan. Show MaritimePatsFan's posts


    Paul, could you please explain your power ranking formula.
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts


    Paul K, I haven't seen your rankings this week. Is the post up yet?
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaBlade. Show DaBlade's posts


    I agree there seems to be a measure of P.C. with some rankings but the best one I've seen was based on point differential mostly weighted to the last 4 games played and it also took into account overall record vs. opponents overall record. I can't remember whose it was but I found it last year with a complete breakdown on how the rankings were made. I wasn't on this computer and I forgot to send the site to my email so I could find it again.
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts


    My "week 17 power ratings" are getting way back on page 3 of the discussions list.  At first I figured New Orleans had gone on vacation with their comfortable lead in the NFC, and in fact they just coasted to a homefield advantage through the playoffs.  But one dissenter insisted Norleans was playing its little heart out, so I created a second power ratings assuming Norleans was at full throttle in those last 2 losses.

    I'm leaning against using a bunch of the week 17 results.  I see too many teams giving up for various reasons.  Some teams might be saving it for the playoffs.  Example:  New England.  Others have a 1/1000 chance of making the wild card and are in half a foul mood to just throw the stupid game away and go home.  Example:  Houston.  What are the results of that game going to tell us?

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Paul_K. Show Paul_K's posts


    My Formula:

    I strive for a stiff rule that takes point differentials, only as long as the game isn't out of hand.  I don't want tickytack points.  Example: a few years ago Pittsburgh was down by a pile of points, but they called a timeout with a very few seconds left so that they could score a meaningless touchdown against the Pats.  Did those seven points make the Pitts a stronger team versus New England?  I think not.

    I arbitrarily count the number of 8 point scores it would take to tie the game, and I count the number of 5 minute time slots left in the game.  Assuming this line of one 8 point score per 5 minute time slot has just been exceeded, I arbitrarily push the game into Hail Mary territory exactly five seconds later (to include the extra point in the score).  So, I can close the book on 25 point or greater blowouts at the end of the third quarter, on 17 point differentials at the 10 minute mark, on 9 point differentials at the 5 minute mark, and all other small differentials (or ties) at the end of the fourth quarter.   There's sort of a stairstep line that the winning team crosses, either a time line at the 5 or 10 minute mark, or a scoring line, where the winning team goes up above the limit.

    Whoever wins a coin flip at overtime often gets a freebie.  I don't count coin flip points because I don't think they predict future team strength that well.

    Occasionally a team collects an onside kick with 2 minutes left and comes back from the dead.  I don't count those points only because there's too little statistical significance in asymmetric games to be useful to people.  It's like measuring a poker player's skill based on how many times he gets four aces.  (not the best analogy, check the guy's coatsleeve).

    Teams change.   Guys get injured, or recover, or rookies get better slowly, and the coach never says a thing about these injuries.  The newer the game, the more weight it gets.  I reduce the weighting of a game by 10% for every week behind the current week.  Any game 2 weeks ago gets a weighting of only 81%, three weeks back is 72.9%, and so on back to week 1. 

    This last Indianapolis/Jets game got a special weighting of zero.  It predicts nothing much.

    Given these weightings, my spreadsheet looks for a best chi-square fit for all NFL teams over all games.  I then take those power ratings and squeeze them (roughly) into a 0 to 16 scale, with an average of 8.0

    I assume arbitrarily that a 10-6 team is 1.5 points better than a 9-7 team.  The home team gets 3 points.  This gives me a personal point spread. 

    The stats are blind to all sorts of recent injury and recovery news, whether teams will rest their starters, hot rumors of fistfights inside the clubhouse, frightening weather reports, and so on.  However, a combination of the stats and a look at the news tends to give me a pretty good read on the outcome of a game.  For example, I was all over New England loading up points on Jacksonville last week.  The stats said only a 14.5 point victory should be expected, but several other factors (Jville not at all used to playing up north this year, Ty Warren and maybe Fred Taylor returning, a matchup of passing strength vs pass defense weakness...) added on more points.

    Formulas will never be perfect.  I'll blow a few. 

    Gambling is for people who don't understand math.
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts


    I'm the one who said NO was trying, and I believe they were.  Just like IND tried to win last week even though they were in the playoffs.  NO had talked during the week about how important this game was to them to secure homefield and they played thier starters the whole game.  You're rankings look fine, I would agree with the top teams but I thought Denver and NYJ looked out of place.