Big Neil's Power Rankings for week 16

[big_neil]

Rankings for playoff contenders week 16:

NFC:

1) Seattle_ 100
2) NYG____ 89
3) WAS____88
4) DAL_____84
5) CHI_____84
6) TAM_____81
7) CAR_____79

AFC:

1) Ind___100
2) Den___99
3) Jax____87
4) Pit____84
5) Cin____83
6) NE____77

Formula: number of wins * strength of schedule, divided by conference leader to scale leader to 100.

 

[big_neil]

Note: NE has to play tonite and can increase its position dramatically to 85 or so.

 

[Tommy-the-Greek]

When was the last time anyone's power rankings had 3 of the top 4 teams in the NFC from the NFC east? The Beasts are back.

 

[jimmy40]

When was the last time anyone's power rankings had 3 of the top 4 teams in the NFC from the NFC east? The Beasts are back.

NFL power rankings make the BCS look smart.

 

[goshan]

The NFC East teams shouldn't be ahead of the Bears. They deserve more credit.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Rankings for playoff contenders week 16:

NFC:

1) Seattle_ 100
2) NYG____ 89
3) WAS____88
4) DAL_____84
5) CHI_____84
6) TAM_____81
7) CAR_____79

I guess I don't understand how Dallas could be #4 when they lost 3 in a row until Saturday.

 

[Tommy-the-Greek]

NFL power rankings make the BCS look smart.

Power rankings are so subjective they are laughable, but answer the question please. When was the last time anyone's power rankings had 3 of the top 4 NFC teams from the NFC east?

It has probably never happened. If this guy is a fan of one of the NFC east teams he wouldn't put the other 2 teams in the top 4. If the guy is a Seahawk fan how could he not have the Bears in the top 4?

 

[theogt]

I guess I don't understand how Dallas could be #4 when they lost 3 in a row until Saturday.

It's called OBJECTIVE power rankings. See?

Formula: number of wins * strength of schedule, divided by conference leader to scale leader to 100.

Although not a very accurate measure of power, it is objective.

 

[big dog cowboy]

It's called OBJECTIVE power rankings. See?

Although not a very accurate measure of power, it is objective.

Actually no I don't. You are correct it is inaccurate.

 

[big_neil]

I guess I don't understand how Dallas could be #4 when they lost 3 in a row until Saturday.

No they lost 3 out of 4, but now they have played 5 straight teams that are ranked ahead of them in standings (Den, KC, NYG, Wash and Carolina), and won 2, lost 2 and essentially tied 1 but lost the coin toss. They were right there with the playoff teams, just a shade behind (a coin toss behind).

 

[theogt]

Actually no I don't. You are correct it is inaccurate.

Well I suggest looking up the definitions of objective and subjective.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Why on earth would you put us above the Bears?

The Bears are a team to be feared and that is who I will be rooting for if the Boys come up short...

- Mike G.

 

[big_neil]

Cowboys and Bears were tied at 84. I sorted according to reverse alphabetical order to put Dallas first.

 

[AdamJT13]

Formula: number of wins * strength of schedule, divided by conference leader to scale leader to 100.

So a team would get more credit for losing 49-0 to the Seahawks than for beating the Texans 49-0? That doesn't make sense.

Also, do you include the games a team plays in its strength of schedule? For example, after two weeks, if you were 2-0 and both of your opponents were 1-1 (because you beat them), would your strength of schedule be .500 or 1.000?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I guess I don't understand how Dallas could be #4 when they lost 3 in a row until Saturday.

When did Dallas lose 3 in a row?

Since the Bye they are 4-3 - W, W, L, L, W, L, W - make that 5-3 after Sunday / Rams=W

 

[big_neil]

after two weeks, if you were 2-0 and both of your opponents were 1-1 (because you beat them), would your strength of schedule be .500 or 1.000?

I am using the NFL's strength of schedule formula and trying to scale teams record according to that. I agree head to head should not be included but I think the NFL does. I suppose using strength of victory might be more accurate.

 

[AdamJT13]

I am using the NFL's strength of schedule formula and trying to scale teams record according to that. I agree head to head should not be included but I think the NFL does.

The NFL does it that way because it's needed only to break ties between teams with the same record -- so the head-to-head games against opponents can never give anyone an advantage.

You're using it for teams with different records, so it does matter. It won't change the order of teams in your ranking, but it could change the numerical value that you give them.

The bigger problem with your formula, though, is that it considers a team better for losing to a good team than for beating a bad one. Having a good team on your schedule and getting blown out doesn't make you a good team.