PDA

View Full Version : kastofsna's BCS-esque NFL Power Rankings


kastofsna
10-31-2007, 03:05 PM
So I've used two formulas, one that uses the team's record as a factor and one that doesn't, and sticks to the on-field performance mostly. Both formulas use the on-field performance heavily.

For the on-field performance factors, I've used stats such as rushing offense and defese, passing offense and defense, net points scored, 3rd down % on offense and defense, and some other things. I lean towards overall efficiency more than anything when I determine the quality of a team, so that's why I've used those determining factors.

The first rankings I'll show you is from the "Performance Only" ranking:

1. New England: 635.609
2. Indianapolis: 291.564
3. Pittsburgh: 247.5175
4. Dallas: 207.62926
5. Philadelphia: 86.78706
6. NY Giants: 83.9415
7. Green Bay: 83.67997
8. Baltimore: 79.69604
9. Tennessee: 62.77224
10. Tampa Bay: 38.67
11. Washington: 37.51324
12. San Diego: 35.45955
13. Seattle: 27.15309
14. Arizona: 23.60045
15. Jacksonville: 1.5897
16. Houston: -15.77625
17. Kansas City: -23.20487
18. New Orleans: -28.36184
19. Carolina: -33.51439
20. Detroit: -35.6109
21. Oakland: -41.4897
22. Minnesota: -42.9898
23. Cincinnati: -55.3033
24. Denver: -62.571
25. Cleveland: -66.37103
26. Miami: -83.28
27. Chicago: -102.09875
28. Atlanta: -116.70156
29. San Francisco: -119.199204
30. Buffalo: -121.0097
31. NY Jets: -139.8375
32. St. Louis: -161.117

Remember, that's ignoring the record of the team. So there are some interesting surprises, such as Detroit being ranked very low despite their 5-2 record. Same with Cleveland. Or perhaps that's not surprising at all. And notice the massive difference between New England and the next team, Indianapolis.

Okay, so now the next rankings are more like what the BCS uses, in that involves the team's record.

1. New England: 633.919
2. Indianapolis: 290.394
3. Dallas: 177.071626
4. Pittsburgh: 176.09025
5. Green Bay: 70.825051
6. NY Giants: 62.35425
7. Baltimore: 45.102148
8. Tennessee: 44.228016
9. Philadelphia: 37.021842
10. Seattle: 26.25091
11. San Diego: 19.90506
12. Tampa Bay: 18.1815
13. Arizona: 10.36035
14. Jacksonville: 8.09676
15. Houston: -6.06375
16. Oakland: -11.95194
17. Minnesota: -12.35234
18. New Orleans: -12.358632
19. Kansas City: -13.585803
20. Washington: -14.585624
21. Atlanta: -16.710408
22. NY Jets: -17.49375
23. Carolina: -19.433414
24. Detroit: -25.75755
25. Denver: -27.027
26. Cleveland: -38.246722
27. Chicago: -38.431875
28. San Francisco: -41.451696
29. Buffalo: -52.04199
30. Cincinnati: -52.40473125
31. Miami: -83.28
32. St. Louis: -161.117

This one looks more accurate. Again, New England holds a massive lead over everyone else. Add up Indy, Dallas and Pittsburgh's outputs and you barely reach New England's.

TexansLucky13
10-31-2007, 03:21 PM
Damn, we are almost out of the negatives. Work harder!

The Patriots are just toooooo good.

powerfuldragon
10-31-2007, 03:22 PM
texans are too high. i'm out.

kastofsna
10-31-2007, 03:25 PM
Damn, we are almost out of the negatives. Work harder!

The Patriots are just toooooo good.
be happy in knowing that you're the best of the negative teams.

TexansLucky13
10-31-2007, 03:39 PM
be happy in knowing that you're the best of the negative teams.

I wouldn't trade that for an absolute value at this point, hehe.

:texflag:

Ole Miss Texan
10-31-2007, 05:24 PM
Is this really why we wear "Battle Red"?

nero THE zero
11-01-2007, 08:13 AM
Is this really why we wear "Battle Red"?

haha

kastofsna
11-01-2007, 01:06 PM
So all the numbers you've looked at so far haven't taken strength of schedule into place. But that's because I didn't know of a decent enough SOS formula to use.

So what I decided to do was award points for wins and losses based on where the team was ranked in my BCS-esque rankings. For example, a win over New England would net you 32 points, and a loss to St. Louis would lose 32 points. Likewise, a win over St. Louis gets you 1 point and a loss to New England only loses 1 point. And so on and so on. This made the rankings more true to real life I think.

Here's what the "quality win-loss" formula came up with:

1. Indianapolis: 16.571
2. Green Bay: 11.857
3. New England: 11.500
4. Tennessee: 9.000
5. Jacksonville: 9.000
6. Dallas: 7.857
7. NY Giants: 7.375
8. Washington: 6.143
9. Detroit: 5.286
10. San Diego: 3.429
11. Carolina: 2.714
12. Denver: 2.572
13. Buffalo: 2.143
14. Cleveland: 1.571
15. Pittsburgh: 0.571
16. Kansas City: 0.286
17. Tampa Bay: 0.125
18. Seattle: -0.714
19. New Orleans: -0.915
20. Chicago: -1.625
21. Philadelphia: -3.143
22. Cincinnati: -3.285
23. San Francisco: -3.429
24. Arizona: -3.572
25. Houston: -3.750
26. Minnesota: -6.000
27. Baltimore: -6.857
28. Atlanta: -9.716
29. Oakland: -11.143
30. NY Jets: -13.625
31. Miami: -13.625
32. St. Louis: -15.250


By itself, the QWL formula is a pretty decent way to rank teams. Of course, it'd be hard to argue that Green Bay is better than New England. So we should just go ahead and add those numbers up with the BCS-esque rankings to get a more complete view of each team.


Here's the results of the QWL formula when added to the BCS-esque rankings:

1. New England: 645.419
2. Indianapolis: 306.965
3. Dallas: 184.928626
4. Pittsburgh: 176.66125
5. Green Bay: 82.682051
6. NY Giants: 69.72925
7. Tennessee: 53.228016
8. Baltimore: 38.245148
9. Philadelphia: 33.878842
10. Seattle: 25.53691
11. San Diego: 23.33406
12. Tampa Bay: 18.3065
13. Jacksonville: 17.09676
14. Arizona: 6.78835
15. Washington: -8.442624
16. Houston: -9.81375
17. New Orleans: -13.273632
18. Kansas City: -13.299803
19. Carolina: -16.719414
20. Minnesota: -18.35234
21. Detroit: -20.47155
22. Oakland: -23.09494
23. Denver: -24.455
24. Atlanta: -26.426408
25. NY Jets: -31.11875
26. Cleveland: -36.675722
27. Chicago: -40.056875
28. San Francisco: -44.880696
29. Buffalo: -49.89899
30. Cincinnati: -55.68973125
31. Miami: -96.905
32. St. Louis: -176.367

This is probably the most accurate view at how each team has played throughout the course of the season. New England still has a mammoth lead, of course.

I was surprised at Green Bay's QWL. They've played and beaten some good teams. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, hasn't really played anyone, and has losses to two fairly low ranked teams.

Also I decided to look at conference strength. The common thought is that the AFC is far better than the NFC. Well, if we just go by average rank, it's surprisingly close.

The average AFC team is ranked 16.625. While the average NFC team is ranked 16.375. Only a 0.25 difference.

Of course the comical part is when you go by average points. Obviously New England and Indianapolis have such a huge amount of points, that the AFC has a ridiculous edge over the NFC in points.

AFC: 919.9975478 points
NFC: 56.85999 points

In fact, the average point total for the AFC teams is 57.49984674, which is higher than the NFC's total points. A clear-cut case of a league being top-heavy.

TexansLucky13
11-01-2007, 01:08 PM
That's awesome!

Packers vs. Patriots Rematch Super Bowl

gtexan02
11-01-2007, 01:20 PM
Is there a way you could include strengtho f schedule into your ratinsg? Because as it stands, sure NE has played the best ball because they've
a) run up the score
b) played crappy teams

The colts would be much closer if you look at the records of the teams they've played

kastofsna
11-01-2007, 01:26 PM
new england's on-field performance almost triples what indy has done. running up the score or not, that's amazing.

GoPats
11-01-2007, 01:30 PM
Does this mean we're in the Rose Bowl?

kastofsna
11-01-2007, 01:33 PM
Bored at work, so let's look at the average ranking for the divisions:

AFC East: 116.874065
AFC South: 91.8690065
NFC East: 70.0235235
AFC North: 30.63523618
NFC North: 0.9503215
AFC West: -9.37892075
NFC South: -9.5282385
NFC West: -47.230609

The most impressive thing to note here is that the AFC East is the highest ranking division, despite having 3 teams ranked 25 or lower. Really just shows how ridiculous of a lead New England has. And the NFC West is the worst division again. A trend we've seen for a while.

kastofsna
11-01-2007, 02:31 PM
Let's go all out and look at the matchups of ranked teams this week.

I figured the best way to have a "top ranked" teams would be just to include every team in that has a final number that's not negative. So that means there are 14 ranked teams. Here's the ranked teams playing each other this week:

1) New England - 2) Indianapolis
3) Dallas - 9) Philadelphia
4) Pittsburgh - 8) Baltimore
12) Tampa Bay - 14) Arizona

Yup, Bucs vs. Cards is battle between two ranked teams. Everyone will be watching!

TexansLucky13
11-01-2007, 03:13 PM
You have way too much free time...

:tease:

kastofsna
11-01-2007, 03:34 PM
yeah blame my employer.

kastofsna
11-06-2007, 10:24 AM
updated the rankings.

1. New England: 308.630
2. Indianapolis: 256.880
3. Dallas: 199.134
4. Green Bay: 128.125
5. Pittsburgh: 127.075
6. Tennessee: 108.864
7. NY Giants: 87.939
8. Washington: 65.113
9. Tampa Bay: 63.448
10. Jacksonville: 58.495
11. Detroit: 42.774
12. New Orleans: 22.538
13. Cleveland: 21.826
14. Carolina: 9.100
15. Seattle: -6.625
16. Philadelphia: -9.608
17. San Diego: -25.138
18. Arizona: -25.764
19. Houston: -30.365
20. Denver: -33.748
21. Kansas City: -35.325
22. Minnesota: -42.988
23. Buffalo: -43.275
24. Chicago: -47.823
25. Baltimore: -58.925
26. Atlanta: -97.433
27. Cincinnati: -97.738
28. Oakland: -106.999
29. San Francisco: -138.093
30. Miami: -161.680
31. St. Louis: -194.980
32. NY Jets: -214.737

tweaked things a bit. the gap between New England and the field has gotten smaller.

TexansLucky13
11-06-2007, 10:33 AM
I am confused as to how they lost their huge lead after beating the second best team. Is this based off of Brady's interceptions?

kastofsna
11-06-2007, 10:34 AM
i bet it's because they allowed a lot more offense than usual, and didn't go as crazy on offense.

powerfuldragon
11-06-2007, 10:34 AM
this time, i like where you placed the texans.

kastofsna
11-06-2007, 10:35 AM
this time, i like where you placed the texans.
i didn't place them there, the great rankings did. :)

powerfuldragon
11-06-2007, 10:39 AM
i didn't place them there, the great rankings did. :)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v15/TheKingOfBums/carnac.jpg

kastofsna
11-06-2007, 01:12 PM
forgot to add some of the other categories to the new rankings, here's the official new rankings:

1. New England: 313.650
2. Indianapolis: 259.370
3. Dallas: 201.824
4. Pittsburgh: 130.425
5. Green Bay: 130.005
6. Tennessee: 110.134
7. NY Giants: 88.929
8. Washington: 64.953
9. Tampa Bay: 64.248
10. Jacksonville: 58.795
11. Detroit: 41.914
12. Cleveland: 22.556
13. New Orleans: 21.908
14. Carolina: 8.100
15. Seattle: -6.745
16. Philadelphia: -9.718
17. San Diego: -24.578
18. Arizona: -26.274
19. Houston: -30.655
20. Kansas City: -35.805
21. Denver: -35.848
22. Minnesota: -43.248
23. Buffalo: -43.545
24. Chicago: -48.483
25. Baltimore: -59.425
26. Atlanta: -98.023
27. Cincinnati: -98.808
28. Oakland: -107.779
29. San Francisco: -140.493
30. Miami: -164.230
31. St. Louis: -197.570
32. NY Jets: -215.977

TexansSeminole
11-06-2007, 03:09 PM
Interesting. How is it that you calculate this? PM it to me plz.

kastofsna
11-07-2007, 08:38 AM
well, there's a lot of factors that go into the final calculation. it's all based on what i feel is most important, so even though i don't mess with the numbers themselves, i do decide what actually figures everything out.

basically, i use these stats:

- Win %
- Net points (averaged per game)
- 3rd down efficiency on offense and defense
- Points scored per plays from scrimmage, offense and defense
- Strength of wins and losses
- this formula: (OFF Rush - DEF Rush) + (OFF Pass - DEF Pass)
- Penalty yardage per game

what else should i add?

kastofsna
11-12-2007, 10:44 AM
taking a gander at my new rankings, and there's a change at the top:

1: New England
2: Pittsburgh
3: Indianapolis

this is before i factor in SOS, because i'm going to complete that tomorrow after the game tonight.