)Do You Hate Power Rankings?
If you do, I think I know where you're coming from. They are meaningless. No ranking will ever determine the next Super Bowl winner. No ranking will even determine the winner of the next game. Power Rankings often seem biased or bandwagoneer. Here is a post I wrote about this issue on a forum (NOTE this is an old post, but the same general principles apply -- that's what matters). Maybe if you look at it this way, though still meaningless, they will be more fun...I'm a numbers guy :)
One thing I like to do when I disagree with a ranking is to look at the numbers.
I think there are four major factors in how these guys rank teams.
1) Win/Loss: this is the most important factor. If you are 5-0 through week 5, you're gonna be near the top of any list. Even if the strength of schedule is low, there is enough parity in the league that a sample of five games will likely provide about a .500 schedule. So, if you're 5-0, you're near the top...then other factors will come into play.
2) Stats: is your team winning by a lot? Are they squeaking by? How are the offense and defense rated? Look directly at the stats for this -- don't guess.
3) Subjective: When you watch a team, do they seem dominate? Are the making mistakes? Poor play calls? Showing a weakness? In determining the subjective, I'm assuming the writer is being FAIR. I will leave that definition of subjective to the last factor....
4) Bias (Subjective bias): When three teams are 5-0, you are VERY likely to get to this factor. Writers are going to ignore all the stats and homerize a little.
So -- what is the best way to eliminate the subjective and bias? In statistics, you do this by taking a large sample and averaging things out. There are many Power Rankings around. CBS, NBC, FOX, NFL, DVOA, AIKMAN, Yahoo Sports, Forums, Blogs, local newspaper writers, etc. In reading a TON of these, I personally have found about a dozen that are consistently published by major contributors. Four of these systems are based on intense statistical systems, while the others, while surely backed by stats as well, do not explain what their system is.
I took eleven of these major sports writers' ranking lists and created what I call the MEGALIST Power Rankings.
http://www.thumper300zx.com/megalist/megalist.htm
The rankings are: 1) Pats 2) Colts 3) Steelers 4) Cowboys 5) Jaguars 6) Green Bay 7) Tie between Bucs and Redskins
You don't have to agree with the results. Certainly Power Rankings are NOTHING official. They determine NOTHING. They are just for fun. HOWEVER, while there may be BIAS in the eleven different systems, there is NO BIAS in how they are averaged for my ranking system, and as the sample is fairly large, the bias is therefore virtually eliminated.
If you want to be official (since so many of you hate Power Rankings), there is an intense tie-breaking procedure drawn out in the NFL that is there for these kinds of issues. Were the season to end in week 6, you would follow these rules to determine playoff spots (they would have to be separated between NFC and AFC):
http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied
percentage in games between the clubs).
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the
division.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games.
4. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the
conference.
5. Strength of victory.
6. Strength of schedule.
7. Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored
and points allowed.
8. Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and
points allowed.
9. Best net points in common games.
10. Best net points in all games.
11. Best net touchdowns in all games
1) The Colts and Pats are both 1.000. Step 2.
2) Best Won-Lost in conference (since they are not in the same
division). Step 3.
3) Strength of Victory. Pats. Game over.
For the NFC, it's the Cowboys, since they are the only 5-1 Team. Now, to apply this a little losely for the entire league, we already know the Pats are #1, and the Colts are #2. Who should be #3? That would be between the X - 1 teams.
You could go two different ways. Since some teams have had a BYE, I feel it would be unfair to go by winning percentage. If you did, the Cowboys and Packers would be the #3 and #4 since they are 5-1 (.833), while the Steelers and Jaguars are 4-1 (.800). I believe the Packers would be ahead of Cowboys because they are 1-0 in Conference, while Dallas is 2-1.
So, consider that 1 loss teams are all equal, and go to the
tiebreaks. You skip DIVISIONAL wins and CONFERENCE wins
since they are not in the same divisions or conferences.
You go straight to strength of victory (unless you could use
COMMON GAMES, which I'm not going to try to figure out )
I believe that would mean 3) Steelers 4) Cowboys 5) Jaguars 6) Green Bay 7)Tampa Bay 8) Titans 9) Giants 10) Redskins 11) Panthers 12) Ravens and 13) Lions (the only team with a 2-loss record and a NEGATIVE Net Points differential)
Now, look at that -- the TOP 6 rankings are exactly the same as MY RANKING system, which takes me VERY little brain work because it takes a large sample, including statistically based ranking systems (which consider many of the same stats as the NFL considers for their tiebreakers).
And again, I think it should be noted that FOR THE MOST part, the rankings depend MOST on WIN/LOSS, then STATS, then SUBJECTIVITY, then BIAS. A ranking system using stats for rankings may have bias in the stats used (ie, you could favor points scored over yards gained). But again, by using MANY systems, this kind of BIAS is eliminated. So, for me:
1) Pats 2) Colts 3) Steelers 4) Cowboys 5) Jaguars
And so it is written :)