Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Rubeskies
Originally posted by Victory Jones

Im interested to see how the rankings play out after the games today...

Buffalo beat Reno.

I cant wait to see if we are ranked ahead of them as they cannot have possibly played a tougher schedule than us to this point.

GG Buffalo. You guys sure know how to convert third and long over and over again. Also, LOL at my team's play calling on that final set of downs. 2 consecutive screen plays after not calling 1 all game? Where did that come from? LOL. Also, I knew that pick at the end of the half would come back to haunt us. With 1:30 left in the half and no timeouts from our own 20 we run the ball. Then with 45 seconds left, we do a long pass. LOL, I'll never figure out this AI.

GG rubeski...


heh, I know what you mean, weve had a couple odd endings, some cost us a game or two, but most others we survived.

just when you think you know what your doing, something appears in the sim or on the changelog and faulks it all up.





you guys got a tough stretch of games going into the playoffs

good luck.

Originally posted by Victory Jones
Im interested to see how the rankings play out after the games today...

Buffalo beat Reno.

I cant wait to see if we are ranked ahead of them as they cannot have possibly played a tougher schedule than us to this point.

and I love the fact that the A7 BCS 'puters give Buffalo no respect...


our simulated players are developing a +1 chip on their shoulders.

nevermind

Originally posted by Warlock
Originally posted by zgcreech

I am not sure what you mean here we have played the same teams except for the first game. You played Tuscon 13-0 and we played Omaha 12-1. You got blown out, we lost 23-24. You caught us off guard early this season and I congratulate you on the win but I think it is safe to say we are the second best team in the east since we blew out both the Canes and the Ghetto Dawgs the teams with better records than us.

It's all relative TBPH. By the same logic, we've beaten you guys and Canes. Plus we also lost 31-34 vs the Grizzles (a 13-0 team).

Either way, I wasn't attempting to take anything away from the Cats. Just saying that in the "quality of play" ratings, we've done very well (we're #2 behind Omaha, out of the teams that matter anyways, not going to include gutted/CPU teams). I would think that this would somewhat off-set the fact that we have a slightly worse record and SoS rating.

I don't think Tucson is ranked #1, simply due to the weak (in comparison to Omaha) "quality of play" rating.

Quality of Play

Quality of Play = (Actual total point differential) - (Predicted total point differential)

Definition – It is essentially how many points (total) that team has beaten (or not beaten) the spread by. I feel it is a good indicator of whether a team is playing better or worse than expected.

So to me, this would show that, while the Bruins have lost a couple of close games (hurting our record)... we've played well against many of the better teams and/or dominated the bad teams by more than expected.

As for "you caught us off-guard", not even close... I game-planned to shut down Julius Pepper. With him out of the mix, we handily beat you guys. Winning by 8, even with you guys scoring a TD, on the last play of the game.

It is what it is though, I've had my fair share of being out-coached this season. Just like our game against Tucson, I wasn't prepared for the changes that happened in the OT/DE ranks... because I didn't get a chance to play a good speed rushing DE in preseason (which I'd also like to point out, was eventually adjusted by Bort, because very few were prepared for it... making it a little over-powered). Bottom line though, we've all pretty much had our issues this season, it's kind of lame to try and make excuses.

Otherwise, it's really hard to base the "best" team with only head to head records... some teams match-up really well against other teams (or very poorly). Add in the whole parity thing, where a bit of an bad luck in the sim can change the outcome of a game completely. This is why power rankings are a good system, it's far more accurate in determining whose the overall best IMHO. If you're constantly smashing teams, but have a bad game here and there, it'll show that you're better than your record would indicate. Which, TBPH, is why Omaha is still #1 (even though they lost to Tucson). It'll all shake out once everything is said and done anyways.

what I meant by caught us off guard is that we expected to win the game pretty easily. And yes you guys had a great game plan vs. Julius Pepper and did shut him down. Since then we have made a big effort move him around so that teams cannot simply place a TE to pass block on the right side. That was a good strategy and I am glad we saw it early this season and could correct it.

Originally posted by zgcreech
what I meant by caught us off guard is that we expected to win the game pretty easily. And yes you guys had a great game plan vs. Julius Pepper and did shut him down. Since then we have made a big effort move him around so that teams cannot simply place a TE to pass block on the right side. That was a good strategy and I am glad we saw it early this season and could correct it.

This season is crazy like that, I've been shocked a few times TBPH. Games that I thought we'd win, we've lost. Games that I thought we'd lose, we've won. Not every time, but a good portion of the time.

Either way, I'm dubious that the reason Tucson isn't ranked #1, is due to their game against the Bruins... if anything it's their "quality of play" rating IMHO. There's a 5 point difference between Tucson and Omaha in the SoS rating, meanwhile there is a 80 point difference in the QoP rating.

i just dont buy these power rankings. we whip a patsy and move up in the rankings. but we lose a close game to a TOP team, and move down.

a win should be more than a loss, yes, but these rankings dont seem to take into account losing to better teams..

Originally posted by Tree
i just dont buy these power rankings. we whip a patsy and move up in the rankings. but we lose a close game to a TOP team, and move down.

a win should be more than a loss, yes, but these rankings dont seem to take into account losing to better teams..

They do take it into account, but it's only half of the equation. Strength of schedule is one half and quality of play is the other... plus you have to consider what the other teams did as well. Another thing that could be skewing your perception, is that the past few updates have been done every other game.

Using the Bruins as an example, we're currently #8 in the standing for the East (with a 7-6 record). Yet we're #4 in the power rankings out of the East teams and #9 overall. This high of a ranking, is primarily due to our quality of play rating.

The system gets more accurate, the more information, is plugged into it. That doesn't necessarily mean that your standing/record will correspond with your power ranking... the power ranking is merely a gauge of a team's overall strength, compared to the other team's in the league.

Besides, it's got you guys pegged exactly where you are in the standings, at #6 in the West.

Originally posted by Warlock
Originally posted by Tree

i just dont buy these power rankings. we whip a patsy and move up in the rankings. but we lose a close game to a TOP team, and move down.

a win should be more than a loss, yes, but these rankings dont seem to take into account losing to better teams..

They do take it into account, but it's only half of the equation. Strength of schedule is one half and quality of play is the other... plus you have to consider what the other teams did as well. Another thing that could be skewing your perception, is that the past few updates have been done every other game.

Using the Bruins as an example, we're currently #8 in the standing for the East (with a 7-6 record). Yet we're #4 in the power rankings out of the East teams and #9 overall. This high of a ranking, is primarily due to our quality of play rating.

The system gets more accurate, the more information, is plugged into it. That doesn't necessarily mean that your standing/record will correspond with your power ranking... the power ranking is merely a gauge of a team's overall strength, compared to the other team's in the league.

Besides, it's got you guys pegged exactly where you are in the standings, at #6 in the West.

thats all nice and good, but Buffalo has beaten Reno and are ranked lower...

and the rest of our wins against similar opponents are in our favor as well...

weve beaten the same teams and beaten them worse...


its not a slam on Reno, its more a criticism of the system

its the BCS of the A7...


I dont really mind tho, cuz we have a playoff here in A7 so the champ gets decided on the field.

Originally posted by Victory Jones
thats all nice and good, but Buffalo has beaten Reno and are ranked lower...

and the rest of our wins against similar opponents are in our favor as well...

weve beaten the same teams and beaten them worse...


its not a slam on Reno, its more a criticism of the system

its the BCS of the A7...


I dont really mind tho, cuz we have a playoff here in A7 so the champ gets decided on the field.



According to quality of play, you guys are about dead even. Reno has a better record and hence a better strength of schedule. The rankings look about right to me TBPH.

I'm not really sure how you can argue that a team higher in the actual standings should be ranked lower than you, simply because they happened to lose a game to you... teams are bound to lose games, which is why head to head only really matters once you're in the play-offs... otherwise, what's the point of a 16 game season?

P.S. You guys won by only 6 points, had a +2 turnover advantage, punted more and had less total yards... play that game 100 times and I bet Reno beats you guys more than you beat them. Which is why they're higher in the "power rankings" TBBH.

Oh and wouldn't you know it lol... it's got you ranked at #5 in the West, exactly where you sit in the standings.

If we're lucky enough to make it to the league finals, I hope that we get to play the Bruins.

Just sayin'

Originally posted by Mr. Moses
If we're lucky enough to make it to the league finals, I hope that we get to play the Bruins.

Just sayin'



I think that we'll only get to face one another in scrimmages... you guys are on track to be moving up and the Bruins might not even make the play-offs

Originally posted by Warlock
Originally posted by Mr. Moses

If we're lucky enough to make it to the league finals, I hope that we get to play the Bruins.

Just sayin'



I think that we'll only get to face one another in scrimmages... you guys are on track to be moving up and the Bruins might not even make the play-offs

You guys have a lot more faith in us than I do. I honestly don't know what to think about us this season. I've been pleasantly surprised several times.

I still say San Diego is the class of the West and Omaha is a solid 2nd. I put us at third, but Reno may relegate us to 4th tomorrow..

I am confused as to how we moved down after blowing out a team that is higher than us in the rankings.

Originally posted by zgcreech
I am confused as to how we moved down after blowing out a team that is higher than us in the rankings.

Because it's not a simple system where... "team A, beats team B, therefore team A is better". It's a broad view of the entire season, not just the encapsulated game where "team A beats team B".

To help you understand it a bit better, I'll break it down...

1. Memphis has a better record, so are still barely ahead of you in the standings and power rankings.

2. You have to look at what happened in the Western conference, to see why you lost ground in the power rankings. You guys stayed in the same relative spot among the Eastern teams IIRC.

3. The power rankings, get more accurate, the more information it has to work with. Just like any math or science equation. It's also merely a guide line... just because a team is ranked higher, doesn't mean that they'll beat the teams ranked under them. It's not designed to predict individual games, merely the relative strength of a team based on it's previous performances.