Week 4 Power Ranks have been switched around a bit. Now those absolute blowouts have zero weight in the power poll. I think it gives a much better representation of who's strong and who's not.
billsman2
offline
offline
Originally posted by mattynokes
Week 4 Power Ranks have been switched around a bit. Now those absolute blowouts have zero weight in the power poll. I think it gives a much better representation of who's strong and who's not.
Thank you. This looks good, now we will see how accurate it is in a litte bit.
Week 4 Power Ranks have been switched around a bit. Now those absolute blowouts have zero weight in the power poll. I think it gives a much better representation of who's strong and who's not.
Thank you. This looks good, now we will see how accurate it is in a litte bit.
FBGBullDozier
offline
offline
First of all, thanks for putting this together. Polls like these always make this more interesting.
Originally posted by mattynokes
NOTE -- Games in which the margin of victory is greater than 77 (11 Touchdowns) or the winning scores triple digits is excluded in the formula. Those type of games are perceived to have never have happened.
Can you help me with the logic on this one though? While I agree that victories against gutted teams shouldn't be rewarded equally, or rewarded at all, this seems like a poor way to capture it. I would think a better method would be to catch teams who should not be included (say, any team that losses 255-0 in any game, will not have their games counted for anyone) would be a better method. Just because the #1 team is 78 points better than the #8 team (hypothetically), that game should not count, but the #2 through #7 teams hypothetical victories over the #8 team do count?
You've identified the gutted and CPU teams. I would think a better method would be to just include the games of the remaining top 12, regardless of outcome. Just curious how you came up with this method.
Originally posted by mattynokes
NOTE -- Games in which the margin of victory is greater than 77 (11 Touchdowns) or the winning scores triple digits is excluded in the formula. Those type of games are perceived to have never have happened.
Can you help me with the logic on this one though? While I agree that victories against gutted teams shouldn't be rewarded equally, or rewarded at all, this seems like a poor way to capture it. I would think a better method would be to catch teams who should not be included (say, any team that losses 255-0 in any game, will not have their games counted for anyone) would be a better method. Just because the #1 team is 78 points better than the #8 team (hypothetically), that game should not count, but the #2 through #7 teams hypothetical victories over the #8 team do count?
You've identified the gutted and CPU teams. I would think a better method would be to just include the games of the remaining top 12, regardless of outcome. Just curious how you came up with this method.
mattynokes
offline
offline
Originally posted by FBGBullDozier
Originally posted by mattynokes
NOTE -- Games in which the margin of victory is greater than 77 (11 Touchdowns) or the winning scores triple digits is excluded in the formula. Those type of games are perceived to have never have happened.
Can you help me with the logic on this one though? While I agree that victories against gutted teams shouldn't be rewarded equally, or rewarded at all, this seems like a poor way to capture it. I would think a better method would be to catch teams who should not be included (say, any team that losses 255-0 in any game, will not have their games counted for anyone) would be a better method. Just because the #1 team is 78 points better than the #8 team (hypothetically), that game should not count, but the #2 through #7 teams hypothetical victories over the #8 team do count?
You've identified the gutted and CPU teams. I would think a better method would be to just include the games of the remaining top 12, regardless of outcome. Just curious how you came up with this method.
I hand out game balls for my Kicker's team and I use the approach of if we score over 77 points that handing out game balls is useless as the talent differences are so far off that the stats mean absolutely nothing. It's 77 points because that's what I've deemed as the most points a top college team would score on one of the worst college teams. Here I've made it margin of victory as it allows for games to count where one team just gets worn down and their opponent scores because of turnover on downs on basic plays. I wouldn't just say those 12 teams are in no matter of the outcome. There are teams out there that try and pad stats for the hell of it, throwing late in the game when they should just run the clock out.
Originally posted by mattynokes
NOTE -- Games in which the margin of victory is greater than 77 (11 Touchdowns) or the winning scores triple digits is excluded in the formula. Those type of games are perceived to have never have happened.
Can you help me with the logic on this one though? While I agree that victories against gutted teams shouldn't be rewarded equally, or rewarded at all, this seems like a poor way to capture it. I would think a better method would be to catch teams who should not be included (say, any team that losses 255-0 in any game, will not have their games counted for anyone) would be a better method. Just because the #1 team is 78 points better than the #8 team (hypothetically), that game should not count, but the #2 through #7 teams hypothetical victories over the #8 team do count?
You've identified the gutted and CPU teams. I would think a better method would be to just include the games of the remaining top 12, regardless of outcome. Just curious how you came up with this method.
I hand out game balls for my Kicker's team and I use the approach of if we score over 77 points that handing out game balls is useless as the talent differences are so far off that the stats mean absolutely nothing. It's 77 points because that's what I've deemed as the most points a top college team would score on one of the worst college teams. Here I've made it margin of victory as it allows for games to count where one team just gets worn down and their opponent scores because of turnover on downs on basic plays. I wouldn't just say those 12 teams are in no matter of the outcome. There are teams out there that try and pad stats for the hell of it, throwing late in the game when they should just run the clock out.
FBGBullDozier
offline
offline
Originally posted by mattynokes
I hand out game balls for my Kicker's team and I use the approach of if we score over 77 points that handing out game balls is useless as the talent differences are so far off that the stats mean absolutely nothing. It's 77 points because that's what I've deemed as the most points a top college team would score on one of the worst college teams. Here I've made it margin of victory as it allows for games to count where one team just gets worn down and their opponent scores because of turnover on downs on basic plays. I wouldn't just say those 12 teams are in no matter of the outcome. There are teams out there that try and pad stats for the hell of it, throwing late in the game when they should just run the clock out.
I see that you don't want to reward teams for running up the score, but I would think you would be penalizing teams for being good. For example; team A is a stacked team, team b is an average team, will probably finish 8-8, if they squeak into the playoffs, they'll get blown out, team C is a semi-gutted partially rebuilt team. Team A defeats team C 255-0. Team B beats team C 80-17. Team B gets credit for a win in the formula, but Team A gets nothing. That doesn't seem accurate. I'd suggest putting in maximums for the calculations. Don't give teams credit for more than 77 points in any particular game, or, if it is easier, set a maximum PPG value for the formula. That would seem more accurate, and give at least partial credit for all games played.
I hand out game balls for my Kicker's team and I use the approach of if we score over 77 points that handing out game balls is useless as the talent differences are so far off that the stats mean absolutely nothing. It's 77 points because that's what I've deemed as the most points a top college team would score on one of the worst college teams. Here I've made it margin of victory as it allows for games to count where one team just gets worn down and their opponent scores because of turnover on downs on basic plays. I wouldn't just say those 12 teams are in no matter of the outcome. There are teams out there that try and pad stats for the hell of it, throwing late in the game when they should just run the clock out.
I see that you don't want to reward teams for running up the score, but I would think you would be penalizing teams for being good. For example; team A is a stacked team, team b is an average team, will probably finish 8-8, if they squeak into the playoffs, they'll get blown out, team C is a semi-gutted partially rebuilt team. Team A defeats team C 255-0. Team B beats team C 80-17. Team B gets credit for a win in the formula, but Team A gets nothing. That doesn't seem accurate. I'd suggest putting in maximums for the calculations. Don't give teams credit for more than 77 points in any particular game, or, if it is easier, set a maximum PPG value for the formula. That would seem more accurate, and give at least partial credit for all games played.
mattynokes
offline
offline
Weeks 7 - 9 updated
With the margin of victories and all that...Just because you make the playoffs doesn't mean you're a quality team. What if there's 8 Gutted / CPU teams in your conference? That big of a blowout between playoff quality teams suggests that one of the two teams shouldn't be in the league.In our exact case I think East St. Louis is suggesting that they could actually compete in Double-A ball by the way that they've taken care of the teams vying for the 5 to 8 seeds.
With the margin of victories and all that...Just because you make the playoffs doesn't mean you're a quality team. What if there's 8 Gutted / CPU teams in your conference? That big of a blowout between playoff quality teams suggests that one of the two teams shouldn't be in the league.In our exact case I think East St. Louis is suggesting that they could actually compete in Double-A ball by the way that they've taken care of the teams vying for the 5 to 8 seeds.
billsman2
offline
offline
Originally posted by mattynokes
Weeks 7 - 9 updated
With the margin of victories and all that...Just because you make the playoffs doesn't mean you're a quality team. What if there's 8 Gutted / CPU teams in your conference? That big of a blowout between playoff quality teams suggests that one of the two teams shouldn't be in the league.In our exact case I think East St. Louis is suggesting that they could actually compete in Double-A ball by the way that they've taken care of the teams vying for the 5 to 8 seeds.
I don't think we suggested that, but we did play a decent game against a few pro and AA teams.
Weeks 7 - 9 updated
With the margin of victories and all that...Just because you make the playoffs doesn't mean you're a quality team. What if there's 8 Gutted / CPU teams in your conference? That big of a blowout between playoff quality teams suggests that one of the two teams shouldn't be in the league.In our exact case I think East St. Louis is suggesting that they could actually compete in Double-A ball by the way that they've taken care of the teams vying for the 5 to 8 seeds.
I don't think we suggested that, but we did play a decent game against a few pro and AA teams.
mattynokes
offline
offline
Originally posted by billsman2
[
I don't think we suggested that, but we did play a decent game against a few pro and AA teams.
I'm saying your on-field play is suggesting that you could compete at the higher level.
[
I don't think we suggested that, but we did play a decent game against a few pro and AA teams.
I'm saying your on-field play is suggesting that you could compete at the higher level.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
