[posimoka]

Wouldn't my rankings be railing against The Man anyway, regardless of whether they're used to determine the champion or for a playoff.

Not at all. If it's used by The Man, that make's you The Man's Tool. By not giving your opinion just to spite The Man, you are pussyfooting around the issue.

It's better to be a big Tool than a big Pussy.

[Nashhlkq]

Correct. Week 1 is usually a little odd because of having only 1 game of data.

When Week 2 comes around, there may be a few teams that make drastic jumps because they are just now getting stats that they didn't have before. I think it's safe to say that by Week 3, we'll have a fairly accurate idea from these rankings. Or at least... I hope we do!

Could you do this for, say, College Football?

[unapelosina]

The Lions at #4? Pretty bold but I understand you only have one game of info to go on. My Bears on the other hand will remain where they are until they can get a run game going. Good stuff Sully.

[AlexDatig]

Could you do this for, say, College Football?

I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

[Heacechig]

It's no use railing against The Man, sully. The sooner you realize that the easier life will be for you. Look at me. I have a message board called Down With The Man! And it's dead, sully. Dead.

Wouldn't my rankings be railing against The Man anyway, regardless of whether they're used to determine the champion or for a playoff?

[CindyLavender]

I see 1972 all over again.

[amagmasia]

The Lions at #4? Pretty bold but I understand you only have one game of info to go on. My Bears on the other hand will remain where they are until they can get a run game going. Good stuff Sully.

Correct. Week 1 is usually a little odd because of having only 1 game of data.

When Week 2 comes around, there may be a few teams that make drastic jumps because they are just now getting stats that they didn't have before. I think it's safe to say that by Week 3, we'll have a fairly accurate idea from these rankings. Or at least... I hope we do!

[SarSerceSaice]

they worked out last year pretty well, it just takes a bit to even out

[FinanseMikky]

I wouldn't touch that with a 10 foot pole.

We could be a part of the solution, sully. Just think. Our opinion could decide the National Champion. Ponder that for a bit...

[Yinekol]

We could be a part of the solution, sully. Just think. Our opinion could decide the National Champion. Ponder that for a bit...

Good lord, no. I wouldn't want my rankings determining who is in the NCAA Championship game. However, if my rankings were used to, for example, set up seeding for a potential playoff grouping, then I could see that.

[stunnyravytal]

no because you knew that was a handicap when you signed Tice.
LG

I originally liked tice, and i think he did good job getting us out of 5-11 seasons, but i think thats about it. hopefully ziggy will budget more then 3 million for a coaching staff...have a sepearte OL coach and OC.

[altosburg]

Does this prove that Harrington>>>>>>Carr?

[riverakathy]

KC?????? LMAO, they win one game and all of sudden they are great???? Its been more then a decade since they sniffed a playoff victory!


UNACCEPTABLE!


I want the pack at the top by week 2 or there will be some explaining to do!

[Obsententicab]

Apparently you glossed over or completely ignored my disclaimer for week 1:

For week 1, the rankings will be a bit off. I only have one game of data to go off of, and that also means some statistical areas may not have any stats in them to use, causing unintended errors in the ranks.

[ExelePlavisseu]

Good lord, no. I wouldn't want my rankings determining who is in the NCAA Championship game. However, if my rankings were used to, for example, set up seeding for a potential playoff grouping, then I could see that.

It's no use railing against The Man, sully. The sooner you realize that the easier life will be for you. Look at me. I have a message board called Down With The Man! And it's dead, sully. Dead.

[Faigokilix]

Does this prove that Harrington>>>>>>Carr?

Perhaps. Though if it does, it also proves that Gus Frerotte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other 31 starting quarterbacks this week.

[expabsPapsgag]

Apparently you glossed over or completely ignored my disclaimer for week 1:

damnti sully get it right

[Liskaspexia]

the falcons as the worst winner..boooooooooooooooo

San Fran is the worst winnier behind losers like Green Bay(who scored only three points). How did you come up with that? According to your other post they shouldn't have been anywhere near the middle. You have 7 losing teams higher then a week 1 winning team.

[JMLot]

Rams are 24th...I was guessing 32nd.

[refsherne]

Here are the rankings for week 1. As mentioned before, the formula has little change to it, so the numbers are similar to last year. For week 1, the rankings will be a bit off. I only have one game of data to go off of, and that also means some statistical areas may not have any stats in them to use, causing unintended errors in the ranks. That said, here's what came out for week 1:

1] - 26.765
2] - 25.148
3] - 22.238
4] - 21.764
5] - 20.818
6] - 20.122
7] - 19.065
8] - 19.054
9] - 18.926
10] - 17.989
11] - 17.581
12] - 16.708
13] - 15.207
14] - 14.379
15] - 13.816
16] - 13.772
17] - 13.676
18] - 13.280
19] - 13.246
20] - 13.195
21] - 11.163
22] - 11.114
23] - 11.041
24] - 10.206
25] - 10.136
26] - 9.930
27] - 9.074
28] - 8.671
29] - 8.092
30] - 6.335
31] - 5.135
32] - 2.779

Enjoy!