[italertb]

Damn broncos keep creeping down the list

[warrgazur]

4th and climbing, 3 of the top 4 being bird teams. hmmmmmmmm

[arcalmanard]

There were some typographical errors in my stats. As a result, there are some ranking changes.

[Clunlippibe]

In reference to the "Bad teams" argument:

They're beating the teams they're supposed to beat. Would you still be dismissing those games as "Well, they haven't played anybody" if the outcome was a little closer, or reversed?

If the team wasn't a good team, they wouldn't beat the bad teams as handily as they do.

[Polopolop]

Just call me Mr. Baghead......*sob*

[6M8PJigS]

I dont understand seattle has played nobody, what is this based on? Hell atlanta has played more impressive teams.

[flielagit]

Just call me Mr. Baghead......*sob*

if you insist,

Mr. Baghead

[gogona]

It's silly to argue about this so early in the season. We could get into it more around mid-season.

sully, where in the hell do you find the time to think this stuff up? I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what I'm going to eat for dinner. Nice formula.

Some thoughts:

Record: I would probably factor in to that equation, if at all possible, common opponents. I know it really doesn't matter this early in the season, but it certainly matters come playoff time.

Points: I don't think this a true indication. Especially with a high scoring team in a weak division.

Turnovers: Most underrated statistic in all of the NFL as far as I’m concerned. Glad you give it such high credibility.

3rd Down Efficiency: Ditto.


That's all the brain power I'm going to invest in for now.

[palantownia]

I don't understand (even after reading how the system works) how ATL - not playing top echelon teams - and be ranked that high.

[codecouponqw]

In reference to the "Bad teams" argument:

They're beating the teams they're supposed to beat. Would you still be dismissing those games as "Well, they haven't played anybody" if the outcome was a little closer, or reversed?

If the team wasn't a good team, they wouldn't beat the bad teams as handily as they do.

I wouldnt consider beating a 0-4 team by 4 points handedly but ok.

[AlissBart]

You've conveniently ignored the beating an 0-4 team by 34, but OK.

No I didnt, but it was the 49ers who may not win a game this year, who lost to the rams by double digits, and could have lost even worse. I mean beating a team by a certain number of points is cool, but beating a good team is more impressive. If they go and lose to the rams this sunday then that 34 point victory looks pretty weak. I mean its opinon, but I dont think much of a ranking system that does not look at strength of teams played.

[peakyesno]

No I didnt, but it was the 49ers who may not win a game this year, who lost to the rams by double digits, and could have lost even worse. I mean beating a team by a certain number of points is cool, but beating a good team is more impressive. If they go and lose to the rams this sunday then that 34 point victory looks pretty weak. I mean its opinon, but I dont think much of a ranking system that does not look at strength of teams played.

Hey, kiss my butt. We have the Dolphins, Bills, and Arizona twice. We gotta win one of those.

[plalleste]

I wouldnt consider beating a 0-4 team by 4 points handedly but ok.

You've conveniently ignored the beating an 0-4 team by 34, but OK.

[mrllxp]

Midgar, the explanation behind what goes into my rankings can be found in the Articles section.

http://sports-boards.net/forums/article.php?a=4

Read that to find out the statistics I use. It's not based on week to week numbers. It's an accumulation of what a team has done for an entire season.

[VanDerSmok]

1] Seahawks 28.161 (1)
2] Eagles 27.717 (2)
3] Patriots, 26.682 (3)
4] Falcons, 25.055 (6)
5] Jets, 24.089 (5)
6] Broncos, 23.574 (4)
7] Colts, 21.750 (9)
8] Vikings, 19.623 (8)
9] Steelers, 18.707 (25)
10] Giants, 18.073 (13)
11] Rams, 17.861 (17)
12] Chargers, 17.554 (18)
13] Ravens, 17.095 (7)
14] Cowboys, 16.867 (10)
15] Jaguars, 16.735 (12)
16] Browns, 16.512 (20)
17] Raiders, 15.762 (11)
18] Lions, 15.646 (15)
19] Texans, 15.070 (23)
20] Saints, 12.546 (14)
21] Cardinals, 12.119 (30)
22] Redskins, 11.421 (21)
23] Panthers, 11.240 (16)
24] Packers, 11.179 (19)
25] Chiefs, 10.621 (31)
26] Bears, 9.144 (26)
27] Buccaneers, 8.908 (28)
28] Titans, 8.585 (24)
29] Bills, 8.443 (22)
30] Bengals, 8.057 (27)
31] Dolphins, 5.319 (29)
32] 49ers, 3.599 (32)

[BuyCheapest]

No I didnt, but it was the 49ers who may not win a game this year, who lost to the rams by double digits, and could have lost even worse. I mean beating a team by a certain number of points is cool, but beating a good team is more impressive. If they go and lose to the rams this sunday then that 34 point victory looks pretty weak. I mean its opinon, but I dont think much of a ranking system that does not look at strength of teams played.

Think what you want, I'm just trying to get you to see how the system works. It ended up working pretty well last year, as it had 12 of 12 playoff teams in the top 12, and the Patriots finished up the season at #1.