Aikman Efficiency Ratings

[yrades]

Aikman Combined Ratings Through Week 6

Aikman NFL Rank
Record Team Combined Off Def Off Def Combined
1 4-1 San Diego 180.9 93.9 87.0 3 1 4
2 6-0 Chicago 174.3 77.4 96.9 13 2 15
3 3-2 Dallas 168.6 83.6 85.0 6 6 12
4 4-2 Baltimore 167.8 68.9 98.9 28 3 31
5 3-2 Jacksonville 167.1 80.5 86.6 15 7 22
6 4-2 Philadelphia 165.3 86.9 78.4 1 26 27
7 4-1 Denver 164.1 69.6 94.5 24 10 34
8 5-0 Indianapolis 160.0 93.5 66.5 4 20 24
9 4-2 St. Louis 159.5 81.8 77.7 8 25 33
10 4-1 New England 159.3 82.1 77.2 10 13 23
11 2-3 Pittsburgh 155.7 73.8 81.9 17 9 26
12 3-2 Atlanta 155.4 69.8 85.6 7 12 19
13 3-2 Cincinnati 152.6 79.5 73.1 19 24 43
14 5-1 New Orleans 152.1 81.3 70.8 5 14 19
15 3-2 N.Y. Giants 150.6 86.7 63.9 2 17 19
16 1-5 Miami 150.3 71.7 78.6 21 4 25
17 1-5 Arizona 148.6 67.2 81.4 23 21 44
18 4-2 Carolina 147.9 72.2 75.7 18 16 34
19 2-4 Washington 147.9 80.6 67.3 11 22 33
20 2-3 Kansas City 147.4 71.1 76.3 26 11 37
21 3-2 Minnesota 147.1 67.5 79.6 12 5 17
22 4-1 Seattle 146.3 77.6 68.7 20 15 35
23 1-4 Tampa Bay 145.1 69.2 75.9 27 19 46
24 1-5 Detroit 140.1 71.8 68.3 16 27 43
25 2-4 Buffalo 138.6 67.7 70.9 29 18 47
26 1-4 Green Bay 137.4 67.1 70.3 9 31 40
27 1-4 Cleveland 134.4 65.2 69.2 31 23 54
28 3-3 N.Y. Jets 133.6 71.5 62.1 22 30 52
29 1-5 Tennessee 132.0 68.8 63.2 25 29 54
30 2-4 San Francisco 128.9 71.8 57.1 14 28 42
31 0-5 Oakland 125.6 52.6 73.0 32 8 40
32 1-4 Houston 123.2 70.2 53.0 30 32 62



Aikman Efficiency Ratings Formula
The Aikman Efficiency Ratings measure offensive and defensive performance using a combination of seven key statistics identified by Troy, and then measured against league norms (and extremes) established over the last 10 years. An offense or defense performing exactly at league norms in all categories will achieve a score of 75. The better the offense or defense, the higher the score on either scale.




I don't post often so, sorry if this has already been posted. I heard this from Aikman on Bad Radio, checked it out on nfl.com.

 

[Scotman]

I think it may have been posted already, but who cares. It's about the only rating system I have seen that has any credibility at all. It doesn't do much for predicting the future, but it is a pretty good indicator of where you've been.

 

[AbeBeta]

I think it may have been posted already, but who cares. It's about the only rating system I have seen that has any credibility at all. It doesn't do much for predicting the future, but it is a pretty good indicator of where you've been.

How so?

The rankings actually seem a bit out of line with performance in terms of wins. And if efficiency doesn't relate to winning then what good is it?

 

[Scotman]

How so?

The rankings actually seem a bit out of line with performance in terms of wins. And if efficiency doesn't relate to winning then what good is it?

Does it really seem out of line? The win and loss column is not completely out of line. Also, this rating system takes into account the strength of the opponents and becomes more and more accurate as the season progresses.

My opinion anyway.

Which one do you think is more accurate? I surely don't keep up with all of them.

 

[Tuna Helper]

Here's my rating system:

Cowboys 3-2

If the first number represents wins, and the second one represents losses, then you are a pretty good team if the first number is much greater than the second number.

 

[Cochese]

I think it may have been posted already, but who cares. It's about the only rating system I have seen that has any credibility at all. It doesn't do much for predicting the future, but it is a pretty good indicator of where you've been.

Why does it have credibility? Because it places the Cowboys so high?

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Here's my rating system:

Cowboys 3-2

If the first number represents wins, and the second one represents losses, then you are a pretty good team if the first number is much greater than the second number.

:laugh2: All that counts are the Ws.

 

[Tuna Helper]

Why does it have credibility? Because it places the Cowboys so high?

Coming from Aikman, this is a shock. I am surprised that he didn't try to jimmy his formula a bit to rate us lower.

He probably **** a brick when his computer spit out the answers.

I am sure that formula changes are now underway.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

Coming from Aikman, this is a shock. I am surprised that he didn't try to jimmy his formula a bit to rate us lower.

He probably **** a brick when his computer spit out the answers.

I am sure that formula changes are now underway.

you cant be serious.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

Here's my rating system:

Cowboys 3-2

If the first number represents wins, and the second one represents losses, then you are a pretty good team if the first number is much greater than the second number.

You mean like that last 10-6 Cowboys team that made the playoffs? Great team wasnt it? It certainly showed against Carolina.

Nothing wrong with looking a little deeper.

 

[Tuna Helper]

You mean like that last 10-6 Cowboys team that made the playoffs? Great team wasnt it? It certainly showed against Carolina.

Nothing wrong with looking a little deeper.

You just proved my point. Carolina was 11-5 in 2003, while we were 10-6.

By my patented rating system, 11-5 > 10-6. Therefore, Carolina was the better team and should have won.

 

[CaptainMorgan]

You just proved my point. Carolina was 11-5 in 2003, while we were 10-6.

By my patented rating system, 11-5 > 10-6. Therefore, Carolina was the better team and should have won.

Very well, carry on.

 

[Tuna Helper]

Very well, carry on.

Thanks Cap'n.

 

[AdamJT13]

Also, this rating system takes into account the strength of the opponents

I'm pretty sure it doesn't -- at least, nothing I've read about his rankings suggests that they're adjusted for strength of schedule in any way.

Also, the major flaw in the formula is his "Red Zone Efficiency," which accounts for 20 percent of the total score. The way the formula is, an offense lowers its score by driving to the 19-yard line and kicking a field goal, but it wouldn't have lowered its score if it stalled at the 21 and kicked the field goal. So it's punished for gaining yards. (If the offense drives anywhere inside the 20 and kicks a field goal, it would have been better off -- and ranked higher by this formula -- if it hadn't gotten inside the 20 at all.) On defense, the opposite is true. Defenses are rewarded for allowing teams to drive inside the 20 before kicking a field goal, but they're not rewarded if they stop the offense before it reaches the 20.

There is NO scenario in which it's bad for the offense to get inside the 20 and good for the defense to allow the opposing offense inside the 20, so rewarding that in the formula is asinine.

 

[Tuna Helper]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't -- at least, nothing I've read about his rankings suggests that they're adjusted for strength of schedule in any way.

Also, the major flaw in the formula is his "Red Zone Efficiency," which accounts for 20 percent of the total score. The way the formula is, an offense lowers its score by driving to the 19-yard line and kicking a field goal, but it wouldn't have lowered its score if it stalled at the 21 and kicked the field goal. So it's punished for gaining yards. (If the offense drives anywhere inside the 20 and kicks a field goal, it would have been better off -- and ranked higher by this formula -- if it hadn't gotten inside the 20 at all.) On defense, the opposite is true. Defenses are rewarded for allowing teams to drive inside the 20 before kicking a field goal, but they're not rewarded if they stop the offense before it reaches the 20.

There is NO scenario in which it's bad for the offense to get inside the 20 and good for the defense to allow the opposing offense inside the 20, so rewarding that in the formula is asinine.

This is why I like my rating system instead. Nice and simple.

 

[AdamJT13]

This is why I like my rating system instead. Nice and simple.

It doesn't account for strength of schedule, though.

 

[Tuna Helper]

It doesn't account for strength of schedule, though.

True, but those things tend to work themselves out in the long run.

 

[AdamJT13]

True, but those things tend to work themselves out in the long run.

Some of don't like to wait. Hence the more sophisticated methods of evaluation that allow us to adjust for strength of schedule.

 

[Scotman]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't -- at least, nothing I've read about his rankings suggests that they're adjusted for strength of schedule in any way.

Also, the major flaw in the formula is his "Red Zone Efficiency," which accounts for 20 percent of the total score. The way the formula is, an offense lowers its score by driving to the 19-yard line and kicking a field goal, but it wouldn't have lowered its score if it stalled at the 21 and kicked the field goal. So it's punished for gaining yards. (If the offense drives anywhere inside the 20 and kicks a field goal, it would have been better off -- and ranked higher by this formula -- if it hadn't gotten inside the 20 at all.) On defense, the opposite is true. Defenses are rewarded for allowing teams to drive inside the 20 before kicking a field goal, but they're not rewarded if they stop the offense before it reaches the 20.

There is NO scenario in which it's bad for the offense to get inside the 20 and good for the defense to allow the opposing offense inside the 20, so rewarding that in the formula is asinine.

Consider me schooled then. I was misinformed.

To answer the question about whether or not I like Aikman's system simply because it ranks Dallas highly... "No." I just appears to be as objective as anything else out there. But then again, I was wrong about what I thought it took into account. If there were a homer bend to it at all, it would be because I respect and like Aikman.

None of the rating systems are accurately going to predict what will happen on a regular basis. I don't read any of this stuff for that reason. I just want to see what people think and why. I enjoy reading about the Cowboys and who we're playing. The rating systems, all of them with flaws, are just another thing to help me make it from Sunday to Sunday (or Monday in this case).

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Guess that is why Troy was bragging on our team this week--but, we have got to start beating the better teams....starting with the Giants.