Forum > Pacific Pro League > Oceania Conference > Oceania Has a couple teams in the Top Pro Rankings
Mornacale
offline
offline
Those rankings don't mean anything until the bias against the Richmond Rebel Yell is removed. 
turkishkamel
offline
offline
its nice to see a committee of guys working on rankings like this. the more people that get involved the better these things are. this is a much better format than just one guys rankings.
steelerblitz
offline
offline
This is like the BCS....lol. Let me preface this by saying I respect this whole league, but these are just my thoughts on this.
I can make a case for a lot of teams but why? I feel we are still just a bit behind some of the top notch teams...just a bit.
Not trying to disrespect anyone, but it is hard to rank teams IMO. What are the parameters? If it is just by this season alone, then they should set those parameters. Obviously it is not for just this season alone when they start talking about teams winning streaks. If it was just for this season alone, I believe West Scranton should be near or at the top...IMO.
If it is more than just this season, then I even think our league is being overrated. West Scranton (who I respect greatly, doesnt own a title in Oceania yet)and are pushing for #1 in the game. Same with the TiTs. Mean Machine does, but their losses obviously have dropped them in the committees eyes. We have back to back titles, and lost by 2 for a 3peat. We have a loss this season and have lost a few scrimmages against some good talent, so I dont put our team in the top 25 at all. You have teams that have totally dodged friendlies ...like Honolulu. How can you say the teams are the best when you dont prove it? I like how they put a committee together, but I also think some parameters need to be set. For example, you must be a top team in your league, maybe schedule at least one friendly from each PRO conference (or something of that nature) to qualify.
Do I believe we have a top notch league...yes. Do we have some teams that should be on the list, of course. My problem is how do you do rankings like this without some parameters? I like the committee idea ( I think there should be AT least one rep from each PRO league on that committee to help eliminate as much bias as possible).
Until I see one that is committee based and without bias, I just chalk it up as another ranking by a poster (which is ok, as it gives people something to talk about).
I can make a case for a lot of teams but why? I feel we are still just a bit behind some of the top notch teams...just a bit.
Not trying to disrespect anyone, but it is hard to rank teams IMO. What are the parameters? If it is just by this season alone, then they should set those parameters. Obviously it is not for just this season alone when they start talking about teams winning streaks. If it was just for this season alone, I believe West Scranton should be near or at the top...IMO.
If it is more than just this season, then I even think our league is being overrated. West Scranton (who I respect greatly, doesnt own a title in Oceania yet)and are pushing for #1 in the game. Same with the TiTs. Mean Machine does, but their losses obviously have dropped them in the committees eyes. We have back to back titles, and lost by 2 for a 3peat. We have a loss this season and have lost a few scrimmages against some good talent, so I dont put our team in the top 25 at all. You have teams that have totally dodged friendlies ...like Honolulu. How can you say the teams are the best when you dont prove it? I like how they put a committee together, but I also think some parameters need to be set. For example, you must be a top team in your league, maybe schedule at least one friendly from each PRO conference (or something of that nature) to qualify.
Do I believe we have a top notch league...yes. Do we have some teams that should be on the list, of course. My problem is how do you do rankings like this without some parameters? I like the committee idea ( I think there should be AT least one rep from each PRO league on that committee to help eliminate as much bias as possible).
Until I see one that is committee based and without bias, I just chalk it up as another ranking by a poster (which is ok, as it gives people something to talk about).
Last edited Dec 8, 2008 13:38:55
McGruffHawk
offline
offline
Tonga was typically ranked around 22-25 in most of these. After the Mean Machine win, I'm seeing us at 14-16.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Havoc
offline
offline
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Monmouth is an excellent team, but I dont agree that they are, "head and shoulders above everyone."
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Monmouth is an excellent team, but I dont agree that they are, "head and shoulders above everyone."
McGruffHawk
offline
offline
Originally posted by Havoc
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Monmouth is an excellent team, but I dont agree that they are, "head and shoulders above everyone."
Yeah, but if I said "Monmouth is an eentsy teenstry bit better than everybody else" that wouldn't generate much controversy, now would it?
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
Monmouth is an excellent team, but I dont agree that they are, "head and shoulders above everyone."
Yeah, but if I said "Monmouth is an eentsy teenstry bit better than everybody else" that wouldn't generate much controversy, now would it?
SCACE
offline
offline
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Tonga was typically ranked around 22-25 in most of these. After the Mean Machine win, I'm seeing us at 14-16.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
There is another list that some of you know about, which brings together the owners of some of the best teams in the game and is trying to get each owner that is interested to vote for a top 15-25 teams. I personally participate in this, and the rankings are based on current value (what have you done for me lately), though I don't completely ignore historical success.
Teams change a lot from season to season, as does the competition around those teams, which plays a factor. I personally am keeping track of all the "top teams" from across GLB -- mostly PRO, but I dabble into AAA and AA a couple times when I see a team that is head and shoulders above their level and competing very well in friendlies with others above them.
I'd post my top 25 list, but its changed already based on the games that have run today, so I'll need to review it. But the idea behind the team owners vote is to bring the owners from across GLB together to try and put together a solid top 25 list that removes at least some of the league bias.
Tonga was typically ranked around 22-25 in most of these. After the Mean Machine win, I'm seeing us at 14-16.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
There is another list that some of you know about, which brings together the owners of some of the best teams in the game and is trying to get each owner that is interested to vote for a top 15-25 teams. I personally participate in this, and the rankings are based on current value (what have you done for me lately), though I don't completely ignore historical success.
Teams change a lot from season to season, as does the competition around those teams, which plays a factor. I personally am keeping track of all the "top teams" from across GLB -- mostly PRO, but I dabble into AAA and AA a couple times when I see a team that is head and shoulders above their level and competing very well in friendlies with others above them.
I'd post my top 25 list, but its changed already based on the games that have run today, so I'll need to review it. But the idea behind the team owners vote is to bring the owners from across GLB together to try and put together a solid top 25 list that removes at least some of the league bias.
Lifebleeder
offline
offline
I used to have one of my players on monmouth, they are a very good team. Now if only the owner wasn't such a loudmouth asshat I'd put them in the top 3, but he is. So I guess I'm biased. Just like the members of that committee.
McGruffHawk
offline
offline
Originally posted by SCACE
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Tonga was typically ranked around 22-25 in most of these. After the Mean Machine win, I'm seeing us at 14-16.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
There is another list that some of you know about, which brings together the owners of some of the best teams in the game and is trying to get each owner that is interested to vote for a top 15-25 teams. I personally participate in this, and the rankings are based on current value (what have you done for me lately), though I don't completely ignore historical success.
Teams change a lot from season to season, as does the competition around those teams, which plays a factor. I personally am keeping track of all the "top teams" from across GLB -- mostly PRO, but I dabble into AAA and AA a couple times when I see a team that is head and shoulders above their level and competing very well in friendlies with others above them.
I'd post my top 25 list, but its changed already based on the games that have run today, so I'll need to review it. But the idea behind the team owners vote is to bring the owners from across GLB together to try and put together a solid top 25 list that removes at least some of the league bias.
Be honest, SCACE. You keep track of the Pro teams so that if one goes CPU you pounce on the carcass for recruits.
Sick bastage.
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Tonga was typically ranked around 22-25 in most of these. After the Mean Machine win, I'm seeing us at 14-16.
Really? I believe in my team, but jumping up that far after a win against a team that beat us by 60 in our previous game? Nope. Plus, while we've gone out of our way to play some good teams, with the exception of Mean Machine and the Blood Pandas, we've yet to beat one of the elite GLB teams, and we've gotten blown out twice (WS and Monmouth) and beat soundly once (Port Allegre).
20-25 is probably where we belong. SO do the 'Nites. As far as Scranton is concerned, I'd put them in the top 3.
Monmouth, IMO, is head and shoulders above everyone.
There is another list that some of you know about, which brings together the owners of some of the best teams in the game and is trying to get each owner that is interested to vote for a top 15-25 teams. I personally participate in this, and the rankings are based on current value (what have you done for me lately), though I don't completely ignore historical success.
Teams change a lot from season to season, as does the competition around those teams, which plays a factor. I personally am keeping track of all the "top teams" from across GLB -- mostly PRO, but I dabble into AAA and AA a couple times when I see a team that is head and shoulders above their level and competing very well in friendlies with others above them.
I'd post my top 25 list, but its changed already based on the games that have run today, so I'll need to review it. But the idea behind the team owners vote is to bring the owners from across GLB together to try and put together a solid top 25 list that removes at least some of the league bias.
Be honest, SCACE. You keep track of the Pro teams so that if one goes CPU you pounce on the carcass for recruits.
Sick bastage.
SCACE
offline
offline
damnit mcgruff....you are always so quick to pick up on the motives behind my madness 
No more posting for me
No more posting for me
Havoc
offline
offline
Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Yeah, but if I said "Monmouth is an eentsy teenstry bit better than everybody else" that wouldn't generate much controversy, now would it?
No worries. I already pasted your comment into my, "Why I hate Tonga" file in order to keep me motivated before we play again.
Yeah, but if I said "Monmouth is an eentsy teenstry bit better than everybody else" that wouldn't generate much controversy, now would it?
No worries. I already pasted your comment into my, "Why I hate Tonga" file in order to keep me motivated before we play again.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
