CFL.ca Power ratings

http://www.cfl.ca/page/power-rankings for week 5. They have the riders in the basement at #6 and the BC Lions jumped to #4

question - do they let the pet monkey do the ratings lol?

These ratings get more whacked every week. This is the worst - Calgary at the top is correct but why would BC be ahead of TO - well according to these rankings it's becasue they kick more field goals and are more likely to win because of this stat..
But Winnipeg ahead of Montreal? I say either fix your method of analysis or stop publishing such nonsense.

I thought Maggie the Monkey retired.

I still like Dust’s theory of the guys downing a keg, and then making the rankings.

So Edmonton gets spanked and moves UP a spot?

Anyone see the CFL.ca poll? It asks who should be ranked #1 in the PR, and Winnipeg is leading with 26%. Don't think! All they did was beat up on the pathetic Esks. The top 3, in whatever order you want, should be Sask, Cal, and Mon.

I know, they're a bit strange. I don't know why the Lions aren't #1 either!

It should be Calgary - Riders - Montreal - Argo's - Winnipeg - Hamilton ( Winnipeg and Hamilton tied really ) then BC followed by Edmonton....

Since WPG is 2 2 and Ham 1 3, common sense would be that WPG would be ahead of Ham ?

I agree with your ranking, but wouldnt say that wpg and ham are tied.

actually, I changed my mind. Since the only difference is that ham lost to montreal while wpg beat edmonton, it is a toss up between them. I might even put ham ahead

The only thing the the CFL.ca is proving with these power rankings is that they are totally irrelevant. You could take four different indicators-- like time of possession, first downs, turnovers and punting average and come up with better rankings! As for the ones who set this joke up... its back to the drawing board! :thdn:

So the fact that Wpg is 2 2 and Ham is 1 3 wouldn’t mean anything :roll:

at this point, no.

power rankings do not equal standings, otherwise why bother.

Fact is, they are 1 point apart, in hams favor, in head to head. Wpg beat the worst team in the league while ham lost to a top 3. wpg lost to 4th place team, while ham lost to 1st place team. Wait till ham plays edmonton and wpg plays montreal, then standings will tell a different story.

It will be clear this weekend, both Ham and Wpg have tough road games !

What an embarrassment of a ranking system they got there. They really embody the slightly modified saying "it's not whether you win or lose it's how many pointless statistics you put up". It's a sad day when two teams go head to head ina close game and the losing team is the one that is higher up on the power rankings

You'd think when they researched what "the four most statistically significant indicators of team success" that wins would be the first statistic they look at because after all the teams with the most wins tend to be the ones that make the playoffs and every team that has won a game in the playoffs advances to the next round, and the grey cup champion has always been the team that won the last game (except according to thryllin who feels that the riders are the only team and thus only champion in a league of 1 :stuck_out_tongue:). This really is textbook putting the cart before the horse

right now..

calgary,sask,mtl,tor,wpg,bc,ham,edm

calgary goes ahead of sask due to them beating sask this past week,
mtl is right there, only 3rd because of a close loss to sask, yet to be blown out, sask was vs calgary.
argos because they are 3-1 and only cuz they are 3-1. lemon hasnt done much but the d is solid. gotta pass for more than 200 yards tho to win consistently.
wpg 2-2. 2 blowout wins, 1 close loss, 1 larger loss (21 pts).
bc (1-3). havent been blownout as much as hamilton has. loss's outside of 1 have been close.
ham (1-3) 2 blowout loss's.
edm (0-4) speaks for itself.

In my opinion they missed a really important statistic in their formula. Turnovers can really determine the outcome of a game and I don't see how they weren't incorporated into the formula.

Just look at what happened to the Eskimos when they played the Riders last time. They had two drives that they probably would have scored on ended because of lost fumbles and the Riders ended up winning.

I also agree that wins and losses should play a factor. I just don't see how a team can lose and move up in the rankings or win and move down. It seems illogical.

Honestly, the Als are the champs and until they are eliminated they are # 1 ! That's the only power rankings that matter . The year before, the Stamp's were # 1 !

Could it be Winnipeg fans have picked up on the Riders way of skewing the polls? You are right and I have to agree we have not been truly tested yet. As for the PR for this week goes, not only did they allow the monkey to prepare the ratings but they picked on the one that was on crack. Their methology is flawed and lacking common sense.

As to your Eskimoes, I would venture to say you will not see the same team effort or lack of this week. The players who want to stay will step up. Sure wish I had the franchise for the distribution of Stick’em. Good luck.

Wait, turnovers aren't incorporated into this formula? :lol:

Here's where I lose respect for this formula entirely. Turnovers are arguably the single biggest factor in whether a team wins or loses a game on most nights.