this GoTW reminds me of that Monday Night Football a few years ago with two winless teams. quite a game (not really)
Forum > Europe East A Leagues > Europe East A #8 > WEEK 12 PREDICTIONS - LEAGUE PROJECTOR - POWER RANKINGS
heytheresrich
offline
offline
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
IggyWH
offline
offline
Originally posted by heytheresrich
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
Yes, and Chem.
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
Yes, and Chem.
KCcook58
offline
offline
Grodno TiTans are in a slump but that will all end today against the Blue Grass Hitmen.
TiTans by 11
TiTans by 11
VietCampo
offline
offline
i knew it would be a close game, i just had my doubts of you winning... Guess the Blaze just sucks at gameplanning...
Arkatalink
offline
offline
1 2 3 4 OT Total
Istanbul Anatolian Guard Dawgs 0 14 0 7 0 21 Final
Stalingrad Loyalists 3 7 0 0 0 10
Victory for us
Istanbul Anatolian Guard Dawgs 0 14 0 7 0 21 Final
Stalingrad Loyalists 3 7 0 0 0 10
Victory for us
VietCampo
offline
offline
Originally posted by Arkatalink
1 2 3 4 OT Total
Istanbul Anatolian Guard Dawgs 0 14 0 7 0 21 Final
Stalingrad Loyalists 3 7 0 0 0 10
Victory for us
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
1 2 3 4 OT Total
Istanbul Anatolian Guard Dawgs 0 14 0 7 0 21 Final
Stalingrad Loyalists 3 7 0 0 0 10
Victory for us
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
IggyWH
offline
offline
Originally posted by Viet
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
:whispers:
It's not being taken off, it's just going to 20
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
:whispers:
It's not being taken off, it's just going to 20
VietCampo
offline
offline
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by Viet
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
:whispers:
It's not being taken off, it's just going to 20
Basically being taken off for me. I wouldn't go near trying to recruit a level 20+ players with the team i got. o.O
Originally posted by Viet
yea, i quit gameplanning... i'm getting an early start to recruiting for the level cap being taken off.
:whispers:
It's not being taken off, it's just going to 20
Basically being taken off for me. I wouldn't go near trying to recruit a level 20+ players with the team i got. o.O
heytheresrich
offline
offline
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by heytheresrich
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
Yes, and Chem.
Interesting. So if a team is say 4th place on the power rankings but is actually 2nd place in the league conference standings, does that indirectly indicate that they are overachieving with their players? Consequently, if a team for instance is 6th place on the power rankings but actually lower in the actual conference standings it should mean they are underachieving. This is going off the assumption that higher levels = higher chance of winning.
Originally posted by heytheresrich
Originally posted by IggyWH
Originally posted by josh2otter
3 of 4 teams ahead of us in the POWER RANKINGS we've beat?!? Good formula
It's not perfect and it has some errors, but it gets the job done. For instance, your team only has 4 LB's, but the Power Rankings take into consideration the top 5 LB's on a team. Therefore, you get a 0 for your 5th LB. If I put a 12 in there, your score becomes 77.7.
There's also a 2 point adjustment to do to each team that I don't bother doing because it's too much of a pain in the ass and takes too long to do. If I did that, you'd probably be better than Cape Town also. So just consider that every score is +/- 2.
Hey Iggy, are the power rankings primarily based on player level then?
Yes, and Chem.
Interesting. So if a team is say 4th place on the power rankings but is actually 2nd place in the league conference standings, does that indirectly indicate that they are overachieving with their players? Consequently, if a team for instance is 6th place on the power rankings but actually lower in the actual conference standings it should mean they are underachieving. This is going off the assumption that higher levels = higher chance of winning.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
