I never look at power rankings because of stupidity like this

WPG loses and moves up 3 spots to first
MTL wins and drops 2 spots to 7th
Edm loses(to Montreal) and climbs 1 to 5th

3 of the 4 teams that won last week, dropped in the rankings.

2 of the 4 losing teams climbed in the rankings


A win-less team(Edm) is ranked 5th

This is a result of a new mathematical formula implemented this year...
Time for a new formula

Als in 7th i beg to differ
I said it before and i say it again, i prefer to be last in the power ranking at this time of the year, and have something to whip the player with concerning their performance. And be roaring by the end of the season. The only power ranking that matters is who wins the GC.

Tant qu'à utiliser cette formule, aussi bien utilisé un dé à 8 faces pour déterminer le classement.

Winnipeg se fait battre chez eux par Toronto et grimpent 3 places pour ravir la 1e place?!?!?

Edmonton qui dépasse les Alouettes après avoir perdu à domicile contre eux????

Voici la formule:

The equation may be written as follows: 3.9659 + (QB Rating x .233) + (Rushing Yards x .044) - (Field Goals Missed x 2.8) - (Sacks Taken x .73).

For 2010, a club's "power" will be measured each week using this equation twice: Once for its offensive score, and then subtracting the results of the equation for its opponent, for its defensive score.

Power Rankings will be weighted based on the following formula: The immediately prior week's results will be weighted 25%, and cumulative results will be weighted at 75% (except for the first week, which is based on 2009's final standings).

Premièrement, il manque certains statistiques très importantes comme par exemple: les parties gagnées et les points comptés!!!

Deuxièment, il y a un bias évident en faveur des équipes qui courent plus souvent. (Plus de verges au sol, moins de sacks alloués et possibilité d'avoir un bon score avec le QB rating même si les verges ne sont pas là)

Troisièment, donner autant d'importance aux placements manqués est carrément stupide! Un botteur qui est 5/7 va faire perdre 5.6 points à son équipe (l'équivalent de 127 verges au sol) contre zéro pour un botteur qui est 0/0!

Sérieux, je vais envoyer mon CV à la LCF pour l'an prochain car ce système est carrément honteux!

Et en passant, le 3.9659 dans la formule a l'air très scientifique, mais il est carrément inutile!

Le score final est déterminé par A-B où
A est le résultat de la formule en utilisant les données des Als
B est le résultat de la formule en utilisant les données des adversaires des Als

En faisant A-B, obtient 3.9659-3.9659=0 ie les constantes s'annulent!

On aurait pu mettre 0, 94848784879859 ou -0.00005, ça ne change absolument rien!

Le plus drôle dans tout ça c'est d'avoir lu les commentaires outrés des fans des riders qui ont fait une syncope en voyant Winnipeg devant eux.

So!
Number 1 lost to number 8
Number 3 lost to number 6
Number 5 lost to number 7
Number 2 beat number 5

25% accurate
Impressive

To keep a running tab
In week 1
The higher team was 2 for 4
In week 2 They were 4 for 4

Total winning %
7 for 12 or 58%

It hasn't gotten any better


BC loses 3 in a row and rises 1
SSK loses its first game of the season and drops 5 spots
Ham loses 1 and drops

How Edmonton can lose 4 in a row and rise is beyond me.
How they can be 0-4 and not in last place is baffling

One good thing from their perspective, I never look at them, until now, I want to see how ridiculous they can get

In 3 of 4 games last week, the lower ranked team won.

Another 25% week

Le fait que l'équipe moins bien classée gagne n'est pas nécessairement surprenant. Il y a beaucoup de parité et un soir donné, Edmonton peut battre les Riders.

Ce qui est stupide, c'est de voir comment le classement évolue. Edmonton devrait être 9e même s'il y a juste 8 clubs tellement les Esks font dur. Sask s'est fait planté un match, et pas contre des pieds de céleri, et ils tombent de 5?? Voyons!

Sure any team can beat any team, but I would think that a higher ranked team would win more that 1 out of 4 times.

What gets me is that generally losing teams rise while winning teams fall.

Again, how can you be 0-4 and not ranked last?

ro1313 wrote:Sure any team can beat any team, but I would think that a higher ranked team would win more that 1 out of 4 times.

What gets me is that generally losing teams rise while winning teams fall.

Again, how can you be 0-4 and not ranked last?

C'est les 2 dernières affirmations qui me dérangent. La première, je trouve rien de mal à ça. Il y a pas un club dominant au point où sa victoire est assurée.

The best thing those rankings do, is make us talk football parce que comme dit PF les Esk devrais 9ieme lol

If you look here, on the CFL forum the CFL main page and facebook.
Everyone thinks they are ridiculous. But the CFL people/person are standing by it.
Everyone else is wrong except him

Nothing like a good controversy, i don;t think he is fully standing by it, he says give it time before discsarding it, but i think his caculation is wrong.

I was just reading the explaination again.
75% is based on the previous weeks(supposed to be)
If that is the case, how does SSK drop 5 places after 1 lose?

MTL was penalised for missing 1 field goal, were they rewarded for making 7? I donut think so! And the one that they missed was a 52 yarder, missing a 52 yarder and missing a 20 yarder makes no difference in the calculation...but it should

points are awarded for rushing yards, you can rush 100 yards down field then fumble but there is nothing for turnovers. Well there is for pics, because QB ranking is part of it and pics show up there. So only part of turnovers count against you. None count for you!