Week 4 Power Rankings

[Fosco33]

My rankings... again - using a calculation of offensive/defensive stats, TOP, points, turnovers.

I have a lot of details/reasons why things 'are the way they are'. This ranking system has been in use for 5 years now and is very predictive of victories (if you alter slightly for home field, injuries, travel, etc.). Also, by about week 5 or 6 (depending on bye weeks and initial strength of opponents), most good/bad teams shake themselves out.

Bears 7th
Packers 11th
Vikings 14th
Lions 31st

[texaspackerbacker]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

What a total load of crap!

This thing is just plain FLAWED!

If they want to knock the Packers down to 8 after a loss, fine--a bit extreme, but OK. But the Cowboys 7th? The Eagles AHEAD of the Cowboys? Baltimore #1? Atlanta #6?

Those things are just LUDICROUS.

Quit your complaining, explain why you think its flawed and put up your own rankings. Or copy somebody else's rankings.

My guess is the Packers aren't much higher than 8th anywhere, but your free to post what you find.

Remember, this list isn't adjusted for opponent's defense yet, that happens after Week 4 I believe.

I wouldn't have been so rude if you did this yourself, max, but to think somebody actually got paid for this, that's pretty bad.

The examples above are so WEIRD on their face that they shouldn't need an explanation of how they are flawed, but I'll give you one just the same.

Most of the idiocy would seem to be explained by over-emphasizing defense. That would account for teams like Baltimore, Philadelphia, and maybe the Giants being ridiculously highly rated. Putting Atlanta that high, as well has having Dallas so low, however, is just beyond any logic whatsoever.

As I said, I can't complain too badly if all the unbeaten teams are elevated above the Packers--although, that kinda defeats the purpose of calling it "power rankings" instead of performance ratings or whatever.

A TRUE Power Ranking means a team is better than and would be expected to beat any team lower than it. Thus, my Power Ranking would be as follows:

1. Dallas
2. Green Bay
3. Philadelphia
4. Pittsburgh
5. Indianapolis
6. Jacksonville
7. Giants
8. San Diego
9. Denver
10.Minnesota
11.Tennessee
12.New England
13.Baltimore
14.Buffalo
15.Tampa
16.Atlanta
17.Chicago
18.San Francisco
19.New Orleans
20.Arizona

Beyond 20, who cares.

[Kyle.McCarroll]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

1. Dallas
2. Green Bay

Maybe just a tad bit of homerism in that.

[Rastak]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

1. Dallas
2. Green Bay

Maybe just a tad bit of homerism in that.

Tex? That's not possible.

[Gunakor]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

5. Indianapolis

17.Chicago

By your definition of a true power ranking, how do you justify these rankings based upon what actually happened on the field in week 1?

For the record, I also believe Indy is still a better team, but the gap between them is not so big. And I can't justify putting a 1-2 team in the top 5. The Bears are ranked about right, but I'd rank the Colts in the 10-15 range.

[pbmax]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

A TRUE Power Ranking means a team is better than and would be expected to beat any team lower than it.

I cannot argue with this definition. Remember though, that these numbers are not adjusted for opponent's yet. That happens after Week 4 for these guys, when they numbers tell them they have enough data for it to be accurate and predictive.

For their version of your definition, check the DAVE scores.

[texaspackerbacker]

Re: Week 4 Power Rankings

5. Indianapolis

17.Chicago

By your definition of a true power ranking, how do you justify these rankings based upon what actually happened on the field in week 1?

For the record, I also believe Indy is still a better team, but the gap between them is not so big. And I can't justify putting a 1-2 team in the top 5. The Bears are ranked about right, but I'd rank the Colts in the 10-15 range.

What can I say? I think the Colts as of now would beat any team below them. There were a lot of extenuating circumstances their first couple of games.

As for homerism in picking my two favorite teams 1/2 (in opposite order), there too, I'd clearly pick those two teams over any team below them, and I would think, it would be hard to argue against that.

Rastak, the ranking I thought people would give me the most static over was picking the Vikings so high.