Warthog wrote:
(I am not dissing Seattle in anyway. I am dissing the formula that creates the power rankings!)
Points scored/allowed/differential has always been an accurate measure of a team's strength and should probably be 75-90% of the evaluation factor with much of rest measuring strength of schedule.
(Does anyone know what the ranking formula actually measures?)
Other factors such as yards gained or attempts to include player's ratings in a calculation are notably inaccurate. Not to diss my team, but Washington was very overrated last season (as an example). At one point the team was below .500 but ranked #3. It had a tough schedule and was doing OK considering, but i suspected that much of the team's ranking may have been due to an overestimation based on the team's player's 'paper' ratings, while no consideration was being given to the fact that the team was overloaded with chronically injured players (a factor which remains) which resulted in the team never playing up to its 'potential' strength.
Basically, the point is that the main factor that should be considered in the rankings is a team's output and results and not much else.
