Yup another week of inexplicable rankings. I thought the Riders would be number 1 because we kicked the most field goals. :lol: Calgary and Montreal make some sense though Montreal should be 1st I would think. But Winnipeg 3rd and Edmonton 4th - I don't think so.
this has got to be the most ridiculous rankings ever.
The formula they use is seriously flawed... I keep telling Jaime Stein that, but he is stubbornly sticking by it... he even emailed me on facebook wanting to call me to discuss them! Then he gave me his number, but I said I wasn't going to waste my time... but apparently, he wants to waste his... and ours!! I've noticed that these havent been posted on facebook yet... I wonder if he doesn't want the thing to be roundly criticsized... again! :roll: :lol: :lol:
well how can you have a team as poor as the Eskimos be 4th in the rankings? they didn't even score as many points as the Riders and they threw interceptions. it really makes absolutely no sense!
rankings are suppose to be about teams winning and losing.. not all these little tiny stats.
THIS IS NOT THE NFL!
ya even as a stamps fan you know i can see how they would be first, but i think this week it is montreal, then calgary, saskatchewan should have moved up instead of hamilton passing them, and edmonton shouldnt move so far up by winning one game against a team almost as bad as them
Wow. Edmonton keeps climbing. :lol: Win or lose, we should be #1 next week. :thup:
You guys don't get it: they put the teams' logos in a cage, and drop in a chicken. Whatever order the logos get shat upon....voila - this week's power rankings.
Lol Chief. I might as well get in on this crazyness: Stay tuned for the big power ranking debate between J. Stein and our very own power ranker genious the Turkeybend. :rockin: I'm just having a bit of fun.
I'm surprised "strength of mascot in the wild" is not among the CFL.ca power ranking criteria....
I’m really not behind the rankings but I’m honestly not seeing the system change until next year. The big thing is that they’ve already committed and will follow these rankings come hell or high water. Which, judging by how they’re looking at the beginning of Week Six is going to be very very soon.
My question is: why does anybody even care about them?
yeah. I took one look before, recognized how stupid they were, and dont pay anymore attention to them. TSN got the rankings just right.
I agree with you both. TSN and/or the CBC rankings are bang on.
I care because they usually give me a good laugh on a slow Tuesday.
How'd you get in touch with Jamie Stein? Is he the one who decided on this formula, or is he just the guy whose job it was made to defend it?
The types of techniques they use here are pretty widespread, the reasoning behind them is sound (I know this from my own line of work), and the resulting formulas usually have more predictive value than the one that the CFL is using for its power rankings. I don't know what's gone wrong here, but it'd be nice if I could discuss it with someone who actually had input into its development.
The CFL has adopted the NFL system of power ranking which includes "missed field goals" as an important criteria in the rankings. Missed FG are not as meaningful power factor in the CFL, especially with the goal posts at the goal line. The CFL's rankings have been ridiculous, but that is the trend of the league in copying the NFL.
A few other example of the CFL adoption of NFL stat-keeping is the criteria used to rate QB's, which was adopted exactly from the NFL. It totally ignores the QB's scrambling, sacks, throw aways, dropped passes, rushing, fumbles and instead uses the narrow passing calculations from the NFL.
The CFL also did away with with the QB's "yards per completion" stat a few years back, which was used for 100 years in Canadian football, to instead adopt the NFL's "yards per attempt" stat. The yards per attempt stat is in reality a "mini-QB rating" which takes into account a QB's passing percentage in yardage gained. So a QB gaining 12 yds per completion or another QB gaining 16 yds per completion could have the same 7 yd per attempt rating, according to the NFL system the CFL has adopted. The CFL now totally ignores the yards per completion stat, which I believe is more meaningful in the CFL.
CFL power rankings should obviously consider the wins and losses, the strength of schedule and head-to-head results, rather than using the NFL's "missed field goals" and other offence-only criteria they have adopted.
Since Canadian football is a different game from American, it makes sense to at least examine whether or not it's appropriate to use the same rating formula in the CFL as they use in the NFL. Do you know what the rationale is behind the NFL QB rating formula?
What they're trying to do with the CFL power ranking (though not doing well, it seems) is calculate the expected number of points per game scored by each team based on all other collected statistics. Does the QB rating serve a similar purpose, or is it just a meaningless number, where the higher the number is, the better the QB is?
We care because some dingbat at canoe.ca or globe and mail who knows nothing about football and is foolhardy enough to use the official league website as a resource will write an article quoting these "rankings" and all of a sudden they become gospel.
If you don't believe me, how many published articles are there that used the totally bogus time of possession stats published here a couple weeks ago, which, by some miracle of timekeeping had 6 of the 8 teams under 30 minutes, and the Riders at like 20 minutes per game, which is so near to impossible that that alone should have tipped someone off.
Since Canadian football is a different game from American, it makes sense to at least examine whether or not it's appropriate to use the same rating formula in the CFL as they use in the NFL. Do you know what the rationale is behind the NFL QB rating formula?The QB rating system is actually a "passer rating", taking into account his passing percentage, yardage gained, and TD's/Int's per attempt. This may be fine for ranking QB's in the NFL, but in the CFL the QB's ability to scramble, gain rushing yards and avoid sacks are important in the success of a QB. The passer rating is better than nothing, but it does not truly reflect a QB's value in the CFL. The higher the passer rating, the better, although the stat does favour QB's who throw many short pass completions and avoid interceptions. Any rating over 100 is considered very good.
Using the NFL's "yards per attempt" stat can be very misleading in the CFL. Russ Jackson was only a 55% career passer, but averaged an incredible 19 yards per completion. But his "yards per attempt" stat might be the same as Dave Dickenson's who was a 70% passer, but averaged 13 yards per completion (stats quoted are approximate as the CFL no longer keeps stats of retired players). Under the CFL's current system you would never know they had different completion yardages unless you did your own calculations.
It's not clear to me that the ability to avoid sacks is directly congruent with a quarterback's individual performance. On the other hand, I always find it unfair when a receiver tips a catchable ball into a DB's hands but the QB gets tagged with an INT (e.g. Glenn last week). That being said, securing the football is and should remain an important component of the QB rating system. To see evidence of this, we need look no further than Lulay's two interceptions last week, interceptions that changed the course of the game.