Fox power rating!!!

[dal0789]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5163328
How do we drop??? and how do the skins who Barly beat the cards stay in the top 10 ???

 

[Doomsday101]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5163328
How do we drop??? and how do the skins who Barly beat the cards stay in the top 10 ???

Because it is nothing more than this guys opinion.

 

[Duane]

Because power ratings are totally subjective.

 

[thewivil]

Those power rankings are a complete and utter joke. They have the 1-12 Texans ranked 29th and the 5-8 Rams the 30th. Pshhh.

 

[lspain1]

They are trying to use a set of statisitics to make adjustments to the rankings. It's pretty interesting because those statistics have done a lot of strange things this year, like drop Indy out of the top spot because they played so many weak opponents.

In today's NFL, trying to rank the teams with any kind of system is going to produce wacky results because things like fumbles recovered don't fall evenly and can make huge swings in results that defy the statistics. I wouldn't want the job because instead of explaining the teams results, you are constantly explaining why your system does the things it does.

I wish him luck.

 

[trickblue]

That's humorous... KC loses to us and moves up a spot... we win and drop down 3 spots...

Adam Schatz' reasoning is... well... schat

 

[Vertigo_17]

Adam Schatz' reasoning is... well... schat

 

[Avery]

Aaron Schatz banner picture reminds me of one of the dopey interns around my office who wouldn't even be able to find his own member if his hand wasn't attached to it all the time.

 

[DallasDomination]

The guy who made that Power Rankings must be down syndrom.

 

[CactusCowboy]

I have to agree with him. We need to take control of a game. We need to show that we can take a lead and put a game away. IMO, KC would have kicked our butt if the game was in KC.

 

[Shaun]

I have to agree with him. We need to take control of a game. We need to show that we can take a lead and put a game away. IMO, KC would have kicked our butt if the game was in KC.

Cause after all, if doesn't matter how often you win if can't take control of a game.

 

[Manster68]

Well, I wonder who he is a fan of?

Certainly not Dallas.

 

[Qwickdraw]

Funny how they dropped us even though we won because they said we won as a result of some lucky plays going our way. (fumbles, missed FG, etc.)

However, I doubt they moved us up when Washington and Seattle beat us as a result of some lucky plays going their way. (INT, missed FG, etc.)

 

[Asklesko]

That guy's got his head where the sun don't shine and it's real stinky.

 

[Seven]

I have to agree with him. We need to take control of a game. We need to show that we can take a lead and put a game away. IMO, KC would have kicked our butt if the game was in KC.

KC did kick our butt. That win was amazing. It's next to impossible to have 500 yds racked up on your defense and still win.

 

[HTownCowboysFan]

I've yet to understand why people worry so much about those "power" polls. I couldn't care less.

 

[Doomsday101]

KC did kick our butt. That win was amazing. It's next to impossible to have 500 yds racked up on your defense and still win.

We put up big offensive numbers as well. It was a close game but KC did not kick out butts if they had kicked our butts they would have won. KC did post big offensive numbers so did Dallas.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Eagles are ahead of division leaders, enough said.

And we also had 400+ yards, it wasnt a miracle. Chiefs out played us, but we won.
WE also outplayed, Skins, Seahawks, maybe Broncos, where did that get us?

 

[Spurs21Cowboys22]

Everyone wants to get an edge. He's just trying to come up with the next 'great' stat so he looks good. If he wants to use this formula, so be it. I actually kind of like that a formula is being used rather than his straight up opinion (like most other power rankings). I can't say I agree, but I am intrigued.

For those that have problems about this guy, it's worth reading more than just what is directly under Dallas...

The most accurate formula we've found, surprisingly, does not gradually drop the importance of earlier games. Instead, games end up on four fairly distinct tiers:

# The last eight weeks
# 9-12 weeks ago
# 13-14 weeks ago
# 15 or more weeks ago

On the other hand, Dallas' best games of the season were Weeks 5 and 6, and both of those are no longer at full strength in the formula, so they drop a little. Dallas' third-best game was in Week 8, and if the Cowboys don't have a big win in the next couple weeks, the formula will basically decide that they just aren't as good as they looked at midseason.

What's up with Washington

The formula for weighting different weeks is also one of the reasons why Washington is still at number nine in our power rankings, even though they didn't play well against Arizona. Washington's biggest win of the season, by far, is that 52-17 rout of San Francisco -- seven weeks ago. In next week's ratings, that game drops in importance, so if Washington doesn't establish itself as a true playoff contender with a convincing win over Dallas, it will drop. As I said, these changes are usually pretty smooth and hard to notice, but this change happens to be one of the exceptions.

There are two other reasons why Washington is higher in our ratings than elsewhere: schedule strength and fumble recovery. You'll notice that when we don't consider these issues, Washington's rating under "unadjusted" is 15, much more in line with public perception.

 

[big_neil]

"Mediocre Games"?

Tell me this isn't a NYG fan. Everyone points out how Drew blew the game against Seattle - assuming the Cowboys would have won in OT. Now everyone assumes had KC hit the FG that the Cowboys would have LOST in OT. But can both be true? No, they even out. And anyone who says otherwise is a spiteful Bledsoe basher that was once again proven so wrong they have steam coming out their ears.