Has anyone read the power rankings after this past week. Both groups have the Stumps ahead of the Riders. Gotta wonder what cheap d***s they are both smoking?
In all fairness to Saskatchewan I actually have to agree on the current assessment. Despite Calgary losing last week they kept it close with the Riders and were playing pretty evenly with us for the most part (until those final three minutes when it counted anyweather). Moreover they've played more consistent games this season (then we have) and put up better stats overall. I wouldn't single out any player as being the root of our lower ranking but that loss against Edmonton in what realistically - early on - should have been an easy win for us did hurt our rankings a fair bit.
As a matter of purely shameless self promotion, I generally agree that I don't like how the other ranking systems have turned out in the past and have created my own in an effort to give a differing opinion. I base my rankings off stats which, of course, are never going to tell the whole story of a CFL game but I think are playing out pretty decently this season. On the other hand I do have a bias..
2 pretty good arguments for the Riders. Saskatchewan has a better record and the Riders beat the Stamps in Calgary. Pretty simple to me. The Riders should be ranked higher than the Stamps.
Five Points for Calgary
- Calgary has thrown 4 interceptions, Saskatchewan has thrown 6.
- Calgary is +47 in the points battle (ie. they've cumulatively scored 172, been scored on 125), Saskatchewan is -23 (141, 164).
- Calgary has a total of 12 turnovers, Saskatchewan 19.
- Calgary has passed for averaged rushing the ball 20 yards per game more then Saskatchewan. It may not sound like a lot but it's easily 2 first downs more a game.
- Calgary has a more accurate QB then Saskatchewan.
Two Points against Saskatchewan
- They lost at home, twice, to Montreal and Edmonton both times very badly and our home atmosphere is supposed to be the best.
- Half of Calgary are Saskatchewan fans anyway so us winning there isn't exactly as hard as winning in Montreal or B.C. (when they're good anyway)
Wins are important and winning against the other team is important to help you move ahead of them, don't get me wrong but even I know there is more to the rankings then that. The bottom line is, as much as I am a Saskatchewan fan (and I am one believe you me) at this juncture they don't deserve to be ahead of Calgary at least if you consider their cumulative play. If you consider them on a week to week basis then, yes, Saskatchewan is ahead right now but basing ratings solely on week to week performances gives you somewhat random, pendulum like, results which tell the reader nothing except a bit of ego stroking if their team played well that week.
I love the Riders but I also watched the game in Calgary. We won and we deserved the win, but one or two plays done differently by Calgary and they would've won and deserved it as well. And if the game is that close (which it was) and Calgary was playing better before the matchup (which they were) then even after the loss they're still going to be considered a better team after the matchup.
Are you serious man? What determines the official rankings in the NHL? Stats or records? Who gets the bye in the CFL playoffs? The 2 teams with the most wins do. It is simple. Who should be ranked higher in the power polls? The 2 and 3 team? Or the team that is 3 and 2 and beat the team with 3 losses?
What if BC has more yards than the Riders? If the Riders have more points Friday night but the Lions have more yards does that make the Lions the best team? :roll:
You bring up a good point, having more wins must make you the better team. Let us see how this fits into some historical contexts:
Last year B.C. had 11 wins, Saskatchewan had 12. Nevermind that B.C had better passing yards, scored more points then they had lost points and Saskatchewan had more interceptions and turnovers going into the Western Semi-Final. The Riders had more wins then B.C. so they must've been the better team. I think that's how it played out to wasn't it? Saskatchewan won the Western Semi-Final, Final and then got the Grey Cup in 2008 because they were simply unchallenged because of their superior wins? :roll:
Then in 2007, B.C. had 14 wins and we only had 12. Again, the overall win amount there certainly determined the better team as B.C. I believe went on to win the Grey Cup. How could they not with 14 wins on record? :roll:
And of course we could also harken back to the days of 1989. Edmonton 16-2, Saskatchewan 9-9. Well Edmonton has the better record, they were the better team, I'm glad Saskatchewan just accepted their fate and lost with dignity in the Western Final. :roll:
And... oh wait! There's more to what determines a team then it's win record! While it is possible for a team to pull something out of the woodworks, more often then not those other things help determine just how far that team will go. Wins help in determining Ranking Ranking for cumulative performance, but 3-2 vs. 2-3, 5 weeks into a season and the team with three wins in obviously better then the team with 2 wins? Seriously? :roll:
Power Rankings aren't Gods which, when you look at them, will instantly tell you who will win going into a contest as there are more factors then what is written on paper. Otherwise, if that were the case, we could all go to Vegas and use the best ranking system to win consistently on betting. However, because we know that's not what they are (right? ... or did Edmonton win the Grey Cup in '89?), what they hopefully are is a way to give you a good idea of how the teams should fare against each other. Right now in overall play, between Calgary and Saskatchewan, if they were to meet up again in the Grey Cup tommorrow Calgary should win.
Mind you, if you don't like this opinion, rather then complain about how crappy everyone elses ranking system is you could create your own system for Rider fans where Saskatchewan is always #1 or #2 depending on whether they won their previous game or not. Just a thought. Because I really doubt I could convince you of anything beyond "wins are the only things that matter".
Why do anything based on how many wins? The CFL can rank teams by time of possession, turnover ratio and number of first downs. The top 2 teams play for the Grey Cup. They should make stats more important that winning. That is your argument in your last post.
Please see my earlier post:
What I was actually doing was showing just how flawed the idea of relying entirely on wins to determine the rankings is. If you read it differently my apologies as that was not my intent.
If the Riders win tonight we'll both be happy right? If the Riders beat the Lions I don't care if TSN puts them number 8. :lol:
If they don't win then I will be extremely sad for so many reasons. Fortunately that shouldn't happen because B.C. sucks right now and likely will for the rest of the season! :thup:
B.C. is clearly not a good team right now, and Saskatchewan.. if they truly wanna be considered a good team? needs to take advantage of this situation and kick their asses!
if they don't and lose.. then they're not good.. they're just up and down.
Here's my problem with saying something like 'well Calgary had more yards than us Saturday so they should have won/be ranked higher"... if they have more yards or fewer turnovers or a better QB or whatever and still lost, then obviously the Riders have something better to compensate. There must be some stat that more than negates the stats people bring up about the other team otherwise we wouldn't win. For example, we have 19 turnovers to 12? Well, if we still win more games, then obviously our defense is better at coming up big on turnovers. They have more yards than us and still lose? Well then they must not have the same red-zone production that we do. In the end it all comes down to who has more points at the end of the 4th quarter (even if it's only 1 point).
Up and down ike every team in the CFL except for Montreal. This year most teams on a good day can beat anyone.