# Power Rankings.

Forget being angry over the stadium debacle. We're behind Winnipeg in the power rankings. :?

p.s. I don't care what their stupid equation says

The only power ranking that matters is the one November 29.

I'm starting to think about tickets for Edmonton and buying a TiCats jersey with number 16.

According to who?????? Someone who can't count win totals, or that we beat the Bomber 3 out of 4?

What a bunch of morons. They should consider running for Council. :lol:

If you count the pre-season it's 4/5

I just looked and Hamilton is rated ABOVE the peg.. not below.

Hamilton is 5 and Winnipeg is 6.

Not only is this not worth starting a thread over but your accusation against TSN's ratings is WRONG!

He's talking about the rankings on cfl.ca

I just read the explanation of how they calculate the Power Rankings: [url]http://www.cfl.ca/power-rankings[/url]

Wow. That's really a case of the math geeks run amok! Regression analysis for its own sake with apparently no thought given to the nuances of football. No accounting for things like tunrovers, injuries, or momentum.

All they're trying to do is predict winners based on 4 specific variables. (Quarterback Efficiency Rating, the number of Rushing Yards, the number of Field Goals Missed and the number of Sacks Taken) Thing is, even if these were in fact the ultimate variables to use, they are backward looking. i.e. they don't predict who's best positioned to win the next game, only who should have won the games already played, according to the model. Hence Saskatchewan being #7 while Winnipeg is #3.

It's an interesting idea, but I can't help but think that a simpler and more reliable measure of who won past games would be, as pointed out above, the standings.

Its a horrible system.
just by looking at the rankings you can tell it needs to be redone.

The Win/Lose column is the only power ranking that counts. These other ones are superfluous junk created to fill time in newspapers/websites and space on television broadcasts.

It blows my mind that they didn’t include turnovers as a general category in their core variables. If there is one statistic that you can use with pretty fair success to gauge a team’s chances of winning a game, it’s the turnover ratio. Any measure of team strength that doesn’t account for fumbles, interceptions, and turnovers on downs is not a measure that I trust in any way, shape, or form.

Your accusation accusing me of an accusation against TSN ratings is WRONG (and, jeez, needlessly hostile).