Football Power Rankings

[illadelphia]

I have been thinking about this for a while and wanted to put it out there and see what everyone thought about the idea.

Basically, everyone who does their own power ranking each week will share it. From those, we come up with a BTB power ranking for each week. Originally I was thinking about this in terms of the NFL but it can work with the NCAA as well.

I think it would be a good way for people to learn about teams they might be under or over valuing and help to eliminate knee-jerk reactions.

For example, say the Eagles are #9 on the BTB pre-season power rankings and the Browns are #25. If the Eagles lose to Cleveland in Week 1, I might move them down to #18 in my rankings for Week 2. However, when looking at the power rankings for everyone else, the BTB consensus is that the Eagles should move down to #14. Upon seeing that, I will then know to go back and re-evaluate my reason for moving them beyond #14 and/or ask others what they are seeing that I don't see. Ideally it will facilitate good posts about your power ranking vs the BTB consensus power ranking.

Anybody think this would be a good idea? Have any suggestions to make the idea better?

[gynecologist]

#1 Pats
#2 Packers
#3 Eagles
#4 49ers
#5 Giants
#6 Ravens
#7 Texans
#8 Steelers


I like this idea.. Above is my top 8

[GreyMatterStats]

Ours power rankings can be found on our site under the Teams section, so feel free to use them however you wish.

I would caution you though that the methodology that we use typically makes the first month or so of our rankings very volatile, with significant smoothing usually occurring from Week 5 on.

[VincentValour]

Also instead of #1, 2, 3, it should be power rankings that reflect the forum's true line on a game. i.e. Eagles 91, Cowboys 89. Eagles would be a 2 point favorite on a neutral field.

[SkyBlues42]

(07-27-2012 11:49 PM)VincentValour Wrote:  Also instead of #1, 2, 3, it should be power rankings that reflect the forum's true line on a game. i.e. Eagles 91, Cowboys 89. Eagles would be a 2 point favorite on a neutral field.

This.

[VincentValour]

Spanishredeye, JSpauny and myself's NFL power rankings.
*Dolphins are 87 with Matt Moore/Garrard as starter 85 with Tannehill as starter. Also have home field advantage numbers, but the table didn't paste in too well.

Looking at them further probably a few I'd want to change, 49ers, Saints, Giants, Ravens too high. Bucs slightly too low.

2012 NFL Power Rankings
1 Packers 94
2 Pats 93.5
3 Giants 92.5
3 Saints 92.5
5 Steelers 92
5 Texans 92
7 Eagles 91.5
8 Ravens 91
8 49ers 91
10 Broncos 90
11 Cowboys 89.5
11 Bears 89.5
11 Lions 89.5
11 Falcons 89.5
15 Chargers 88
15 Chiefs 88
17 Jets 87
17 Bengals 87
17 Dolphins 87, 85*
20 Panthers 86.5
21 Cardinals 86
21 Titans 86
21 Raiders 86
21 Seahawks 86
21 Bills 86
26 Redskins 85
27 Colts 83.5
27 Bucs 83.5
29 Rams 83
29 Vikings 83
29 Browns 83
32 Jags 82

[Weebay]

I would have pit below or even with phi and bal. houston slightly ahead of the three I just mentioned. Would have Miami at 85 with Moore and garrard. I like buffalo, Chicago, and oakland prob a lot more than others.

[illadelphia]

(07-27-2012 11:49 PM)VincentValour Wrote:  Also instead of #1, 2, 3, it should be power rankings that reflect the forum's true line on a game. i.e. Eagles 91, Cowboys 89. Eagles would be a 2 point favorite on a neutral field.

Good point VV. I like this idea. It helps give a more precise read on the teams. I am going to work on incorporating that into mine. Here they are:
1. GREEN BAY PACKERS
2. NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
3. NEW ORLEANS SAINTS
4. NEW YORK GIANTS
5. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
6. HOUSTON TEXANS
7. PITTSBURGH STEELERS
8. BALTIMORE RAVENS
9. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES
10. ATLANTA FALCONS
11. DETROIT LIONS
12. DENVER BRONCOS
13. DALLAS COWBOYS
14. CINCINNATI BENGALS
15. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS
16. CHICAGO BEARS
17. TENNESSEE TITANS
18. NEW YORK JETS
19. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS
20. OAKLAND RAIDERS
21. MIAMI DOLPHINS
22. ARIZONA CARDINALS
23. SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
24. CAROLINA PANTHERS
25. BUFFALO BILLS
26. WASHINGTON REDSKINS
27. TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS
28. CLEVELAND BROWNS
29. JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS
30. INDIANAPOLIS COLTS
31. MINNESOTA VIKINGS
32. ST. LOUIS RAMS

I am working on looking at the NFL master schedule and will tweak these a few more times before pre-season starts.


If anybody else has them to post throw them out and I will start to average them all together.

[knuckleballah22]

nice to see houston is in the top 10 this yr for so many people....they used to be the laughing stock of the league along with the lions

[illadelphia]

(07-27-2012 11:49 PM)VincentValour Wrote:  Also instead of #1, 2, 3, it should be power rankings that reflect the forum's true line on a game. i.e. Eagles 91, Cowboys 89. Eagles would be a 2 point favorite on a neutral field.

How did you guys go about setting your numbers? I am going to start on adding numerical value to my 1-32 rankings.

My initial reaction is to use a 100 pt max scale. Then assign (1) 40 max to offense, (2) 40 max to defense, (3) 10 max for special teams, and (4) 10 max for coaching/injuries/schedule.

Does that sound like a good starting jump off to add numerical values to my power rankings?

[VincentValour]

We did 100 point scale, 100 being the ultimate team. 94 sounded right as a jump off point. Then we incorporated some rankings/ideas each of us had from last year. Also took in to consideration stuff from last year we think will be valuable going forward such as luck, stats, etc. Then looked at free agent moves, draft, and some early futures odds to see if we were in the same neighborhood as the books.

Not a bad idea for scale, but not huge on the special teams as much, and teams like the 49ers will be tough, a 10 point offense 40 point defense, will have them very low. But then again I don't think much of the 49ers anyways.

[lindetrain]

I've just finished the first draft of mine. Will make some minor adjustments then post on here...

[illadelphia]

(07-30-2012 05:51 PM)lindetrain Wrote:  I've just finished the first draft of mine. Will make some minor adjustments then post on here...

Awesome. Thanks

[illadelphia]

(07-30-2012 05:08 PM)VincentValour Wrote:  We did 100 point scale, 100 being the ultimate team. 94 sounded right as a jump off point. Then we incorporated some rankings/ideas each of us had from last year. Also took in to consideration stuff from last year we think will be valuable going forward such as luck, stats, etc. Then looked at free agent moves, draft, and some early futures odds to see if we were in the same neighborhood as the books.

Not a bad idea for scale, but not huge on the special teams as much, and teams like the 49ers will be tough, a 10 point offense 40 point defense, will have them very low. But then again I don't think much of the 49ers anyways.

Yeah I didn't like the 10 pt special teams category when I was first coming up with the numbers and I like it even less now that I see your example with the 49ers.

My take is that while special teams are important and shouldn't be overlooked, it seems to be more of an strength for some teams (great return game or positional punter) over others. Apart from an injury to the kicker, it's rare to see a team with "terrible" special teams for the entire year. [NOTE: I could be wrong here but I couldn't think of any team off the top of my head --- though I do remember the Eagles entering 2007 season w/o a punt returner which cost them the opening game against GB ]

As it stands now I am keeping the 40/40 split on Off & Def. The final 20 pts I am going to chop up in a hodge podge category for special teams, home field, scheduling, coaching, free agents, injuries, draft, odds, etc. That seems to be the best way to include all the info I have for the teams and allow for some separation between what would otherwise be 2 evenly match teams on off & def.

[lindetrain]

Here are my numbers. I think an easier way to do it is to rate each position and the coach from 8-10 or 12-15, and sum the ratings up; but if you all think the other approach is better, I totally understand. Plenty of ways to go about it.

(First time doing these for NFL BTW, so don't throw me under the bus)

1. Patriots 96
2. Packers 95.5
3. Eagles 95.25
4. Giants 94
5. Steelers 93
6. Ravens 92.75
7. Cowboys 92.5
8. Texans 92.25
8. 49ers 92.25
10. Bears 92
10. Saints 92
12. Chargers 91
13. Jets 90.75
14. Falcons 90.5
15. Lions 89.5
16. Broncos 89.25
17. Chiefs 88.5
18. Bills 88
19. Bengals 87.75
20. Panthers 87.5
20. Titans 87.5
22. Redskins 87.25
23. Cardinals 87
24. Raiders 86.75
25. Seahawks 86.25
26. Dolphins 85.5
27. Vikings 85.25
28. Browns 85
29. Rams 84.5
30. Buccaneers 84.25
31. Jaguars 83.25
32. Colts 82.5

[VincentValour]

Pretty solid dude, you bearish/bullish on any teams in particular?

Personally as said Bearish on 49ers, Ravens, Raiders, Bengals. Bullish on Steelers, Bears. Also we have a bunch of pages to post, you guys just want to make this NFL stuff thread?

Strength of schedule from our non-updated power rankings.

Power rankings Strength of schedule


Team Total Opponents’ power

1 Giants 1422
2 Ravens 1420
2 Browns 1420
4 Cowboys 1418.5
5 Redskins 1418
6 Panthers 1417
7 Broncos 1414.5
7 Eagles 1414.5
7 Saints 1414.5
10 Bucs 1413.5
11 Bengals 1411.5
12 Falcons 1411
13 Cardinals 1410.5
14 Chargers 1406
14 Raiders 1406
16 Steelers 1405.5
16 Seahawks 1405.5
16 Jags 1405.5
19 49ers 1404.5
19 Titans 1404.5
21 Rams 1404
21 Vikings 1404
23 Lions 1403.5
24 Chiefs 1402.5
24 Jets 1402.5
26 Colts 1400.5
27 Bears 1398.5
27 Packers 1398.5
29 Bills 1395.5
29 Dolphins 1395.5
31 Texans 1393.5
32 Pats 1390

[lindetrain]

I typically don't try to take any stances on teams when making PRs. Just want to make numbers that I think reflect legitimate lines when given a hypothetical matchup.

From a subjective standpoint (and I haven't gotten to their win total yet, so who knows if there's any value), I want to take the Lions under. That franchise is so damn snakebitten, and with that back seven and running game, betting under 9.5 in a season where they come in with actual expectations and pressure for once sounds appealing.

[SkyBlues42]

Quick question... when you guys are putting together your power rankings (I know Lindetrain just said he tries not to take a stance on a team), do you look at the starting roster? I ask because there are teams that haven't necessarily made a 100% decision on starting quarterbacks and other positions.

Seattle, for example, is apparently still "deciding" on Flynn, Wilson or Jackson. Would this decision alter any of your power rankings?

[JSpauny]

(07-31-2012 07:32 AM)SkyBlues42 Wrote:  Quick question... when you guys are putting together your power rankings (I know Lindetrain just said he tries not to take a stance on a team), do you look at the starting roster? I ask because there are teams that haven't necessarily made a 100% decision on starting quarterbacks and other positions.

Seattle, for example, is apparently still "deciding" on Flynn, Wilson or Jackson. Would this decision alter any of your power rankings?

I certainly factor in who I think will start, but I think its a common misconception that any 1 particular player is worth more than 2 or 3 points in terms of the spread. Most players are worth 0 with some falling in the 1 range. Very few players are worth 2 or 3 in my eyes. So in reality, the difference between Flynn, Wilson or Jackson is maybe a point at an absolute maximum, but more likely 0.5.

This is why when a big time RB goes down I maybe shift down 0.5 or 1 and watch people totally overreact which gives me a huge opportunity to hit the team with the injured back hard at a much better number.

This does change with rookies though. I do think Moore is 2 points better than Tannehill based on him being a veteran QB who has had some success in the league. The difference between rookie and veteran is big. The difference between veteran and veteran, not so much. This applies to QBs the most. Gaps are smaller at other positions.

[SkyBlues42]

That's why I asked. I wouldn't assume that Seattle's situation would make that much of a difference. Curious because there are even teams like the Jets that are "undecided." Sanchez and Tebow are two completely different players, imo. That decision will certainly play a huge role in the types of plays Sparano calls.