Warrior General Games

1. Tongan Crimson Auha (0)
2. Brisbane Bandits (-.07)
3. Canberra Strike (-.14)
4. New England Burning Pride (-.155)
5. Brisbane Gods (-.159)
6. The U Canes (-.16)
7. Rawle Tech Titans (-.166)
8. Vincennes Vampires (-.17)
9. Newcastle Bearcats (-.172)
10. Emerald City Flying Monkeys (-.178)


According to the math, I've done pretty well this season. I predicted a mid to late season collapse for Aukland, and that Carabao would continue to not play up to the level of talent on their roster. Gods slipped again, though all three (New England, Canberra, and Brisbane G were virtually tied last week), Bandits fell to second after a win over an overrated Carabao team. Seems my formula hasn't liked Carabao for quite some time (same with Aukland).

Anyway, rant/rave/dismiss/discuss....

EDIT: In parenthesis is how far behind the leader in the poll that particular team is.

Could be interesting down the stretch. Tongan still has to play this weeks number 4, 5 and 6 before the playoffs start.

After surviving (barely) one of the most brutal first half schedules, EC's finally getting up there in the power ranks, thanks to Rodney Mitchell leading one of the most talented defensive front 4.

the Burning Pride wins by 32 points and goes down a rank? Canberra must have killed whoever they were playing, hahaha.

you won by 32 points against a 1-9 team, we won by 117 points against a 1-9 team and we're still stuck at 9...

Originally posted by Hellion1
you won by 32 points against a 1-9 team, we won by 117 points against a 1-9 team and we're still stuck at 9...

The 1-9 team you just beat 117-0 has just changed their name, so I assume has new ownership. They must have lost some good starters because they are starting a number of level 1 players and their overall chemistry is at 39.

Originally posted by BradyFTW
the Burning Pride wins by 32 points and goes down a rank? Canberra must have killed whoever they were playing, hahaha.

Indeed they did. Your 32 points victory over one of the worst team in the conference was actually underwhelming. Canberra won 51-0 over the Flying Squirrels and I can tell you that the Squirrels are a better team than the Tasmania Devils.

Canberra beat the Devils 61-0 earlier and your team beat the Squirrels 23-16. So, yes, I would put Canberra ahead of New England.

I understand that, was just pointing out that big wins don't matter much for the rankings as other factors.

I'm not going to give out the math, but I will tell you this...the formula takes into account wins, losses, strength of schedule, quality wins (8+ points over .667 or better teams), and quality losses (a loss by 7 or less points against a team that has a winning percentage of .667 or higher) among other things.

The formula is retroactive, meaning it goes back and re-evaluates SOS, QW, and QL each week. A difference of .05 or more is statistically significant enough to establish a separate ranking. For instance the difference between Tongan and Brisbane (B) of -.07 is enough to rank them 1-2. the difference of -.04 between New England and Brisbane (G) means technically they should be 4a. and 4b.

However, since people got tired of the .a's and the .b's I just decided to show you how they came out...

For anyone interested the worst two teams were Midd-West and Tasmania

I gotta say, with a 5-game winning streak and wins against two playoff teams, I gotta admit to being curious just how far out of the top ten the Sea Turtles are. C'mon... a little pity for those climbing out of a hole and show us "Others Receiving Votes".

Lol, Fiji is close to the top ten...

The problem is they have only 1 QW, and 2 Non-QL to go with the 6-4 record.

I predict Fiji will go further in the playoffs than either Carabao or Aukland (assuming those two make the playoffs).

Well, the nonQL obviously came before the team chemistry (behind the scenes, not the stat bar) came together and paid off in game plans.

So which one out of the Buffalos and Flames game isn't a quality win? They were both ahead of us in the standings at the time we played?

Originally posted by JuniorMcSpiffy
Well, the nonQL obviously came before the team chemistry (behind the scenes, not the stat bar) came together and paid off in game plans.

So which one out of the Buffalos and Flames game isn't a quality win? They were both ahead of us in the standings at the time we played?

Carabao was a Non-QW. In order for a win to be considered "quality" which in this instance is merely a synonym for "convincing" it has to be by two or more possessions (8 or more points). Your win over Carabao was by 5 (great comeback win BTW). Carabao is also in danger of weakening your SOS by getting close to falling below the top tier win % (quality opponent) of .667.

This poll seems amazingly accurate to me...

Originally posted by Dr Pacheco
This poll seems amazingly accurate to me...

I helped develop it for an online odds maker/sports betting site. It works remarkably well, you just need a minimum of 6 different data entries per subject/team (in this case games played) or the confidence level goes waaay down. Using a chi-square table these numbers are accurate to a 99.5% confidence.

I just find it interesting that Emerald City - who hadn't been in the top 10 at all up to this point - just moved into 10th after beating a previously 2-7 team 85-0 (not exactly an amazing feat). Of course, Carabao's loss to the Bandits and Auckland's loss to the Sea Turtles likely had far more to do with their moving down (and our inheriting a spot in the top 10 because of it) then our win did on our moving up...