Power rankings a big bust

The latest rankings rate BC and Sask as 7th and 8th respectively - both playoff teams. Winnipeg ranks ahead of both. Hopefully the powers that be realize the seriously flawed nature of the assumptions used to create their algorithm and will not continue using the same program in the future.

If the CFL provided more statistics in a spreadsheet format, there are any number of ways for deriving 'power rankings' based on team performance other than Wins and Losses.. For shits, I put a spreadsheet together that basically weighs all the stats provided in the standings:

  1. A simple win quotient..
  2. A weighted home win quotient (x 0.5 since you should be able to win at home)
  3. A weighted away win quotient (x 2 since it demonstrates perseverance in hostile territory)
  4. A weighted non-division win quotient (x0.5 since less impact on playoff positioning)
  5. A weighted division win quotient (x 2 since they have more impact on playoff positioning, hence a team's ability to play under pressure)
  6. A scoring quotient
  7. A points allowed quotient
    8 ) A win/loss streak quotient
  8. A difficulty of schedule quotient (based on combined win-loss count of opposition faced)

Putting these together give me the following rankings and relative scores:

  1. Calgary (7.048)
  2. Montreal (5.353)
  3. Hamilton (4.473)
  4. BC (4.465)
  5. Saskatchewan (4.375)
  6. Toronto (3.931)
  7. Edmonton (2.048)
    8 ) Winnipeg (1.458)

I'd love to get incorporate performance stats like:

-time of possession
-combined yards
-yards allowed
-take away / give away ratio
-field goal %
-red zone %
-completion %
-starting QB rating week-to-week
-sack tally

But its too cumbersome and time consuming to do without readily available team stats in spreadsheet format.

I think it’s hilarious… in a sad way.

the Riders have the 3rd best record at 10-8, yet they’re ranked 8th…

(scratching my head) something is seriously wrong with this picture.

everyone who really dislikes this, has to take that survey they have on the page and tell them how much you hate their new system.

Who was it who said the Esks and Bombers would be in the top 4? He was close. 5th and 6th. :lol:

Where is the survey you're looking at? Can you post the link please, or at least let me know which page it's on?

power rankings are useless especially when it comes to playoffs. Wins will tell the story

I miss the Hits of the Week

The ranking s are brutal! Very surprising considering the resources they have.

it was obviously going to happen given the stupid way they designed the formula. they had years upon years of stats at their disposal and used the 2009 stats only. you certainly don't need to be a stats major to know they should've at least worked with several years of stats instead of one. it wasn't a bad idea they had, but they executed it terribly..

Exactly. They set them self up for failure.

Crazy as this sounds but Turkeybend's PowerRankings are far superior to this riduculous compilation of useless stats.
Long live Turkeybend. Hire him next season!!!!

It is actually possible that after developing their formula based on the 2008 stats, they ran a number of previous years' stats through the formula to validate it and, based on those years, found it to be a fair model. Which would make this year an anomoly.

Remember that the rankings are a measurement of potential, not performance. And often teams perform above or below their potential. Looking at Winnipeg's record this year - losing nine close games - I could see them being ranked out of place with the standings. But the league statisticians definitely have to look at what in their formula had Saskatchewan and BC ending up at the bottom, below the two teams that missed the playoffs. And both Hamilton and Toronnto (especially Toronto - spit) ending up above Montreal?

I really hope that the league statisticians perform a regression analysis on this year's stats to see what the predictive factors were in 2010. I suspect that there will be some overlap with what they came up with from last year's, but one or two other factors may pop up. And, if that's the case, that they adjust the formula for next year.

And then validate it against a few previous years' stats to make sure it makes sense?

Any ranking are subjective and potentially, anywhere from head scratching to laughable. The only ranking that matter are the standings thankfully or my Argos might not have made the playoffs. :smiley: