byau
Active member
I really hope next week I can keep this type of post in the main .net forum and not have to move it to NFL Nation...if you smell what I'm cookin'.
Surprisingly, this week one of the power rankings still had the Seahawks in the top 5 (#5) so there's your eligibility.
I kept the Washington Post "Fancy Stats" ranking because I was pleasantly surprised to find a power ranking that depended only on numbers and stats. Had to take out one... I took off Bleacher Report [insert your criticism here]. That being said, the Fancy Stats was definitely the outlier making me wonder what the formula is for Fancy Stats and how that might bode for optimism (or lack of) for the Seahawks.
Here are the rankings
NFL.com
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Eagles
4. Packers
5. Colts
(9. Seahawks)
SB Nation
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Packers
4. Eagles
5. Cardinals
(12. Seahawks)
ESPN
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Eagles
4. Colts
5. Cardinals
(11. Seahawks)
CBS Sports
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Colts
4. Chargers
5. Patriots
(10. Seahawks)
Fox Sports
1. Broncos
2. Eagles
3. Cowboys
4. Colts
5. Cardinals
(10. Seahawks)
Yahoo Sports
1. Broncos
2. Eagles
3. Cowboys
4. Colts
5. Packers
(8. Seahawks)
Washington Post Fancy Stats
1. Broncos
2. Colts
3. Chargers
4. Chiefs
5. Seahawks
NFL Combined Rankings
1st: Broncos
Votes: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
2nd: Cowboys
Votes: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 (NV)
3rd: Eagles
Votes: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 (NV, NV)
4th: Colts
Votes: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5 (NV)
5th: Packers
Votes: 3, 4, 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV)
6th: Cardinals
Votes: 5, 5, 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV)
7th: Chargers
Votes: 3, 4 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
8th: Chiefs
Votes: 4 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
9th: TIE: Patriots and Seahawks
Votes: 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
Five interesting thoughts
1) Fancy Stats: the outlier: They put in the Chiefs at 4 and Hawks at 5. No other power ranking chose the Chiefs or Hawks in the top 5. They also did NOT put in the Cowboys or Eagles, every other ranking had them in. Makes you wonder what these non-subjective hard numbers being crunched are and lends some more support to the Football Outsider ranking the Hawks high too (covered in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=99349 )
2) Denver Broncos (coming in at number 1) is the only team to have gotten a top five vote from all seven of the rankings I used. Not only that, they got all number 1's. Unanimous. That means it seems they are not-arguably the number one team in football right now
3) Where is the NFC West? Cardinals come in with a ranking of 6 because they get three 5th place votes and that's it. Seattle scrapes in at 9th (helped by the Fancy Stats placement of them at #5). No sign of the 49ers. No sign of the Rams (except in Hawks fans nightmares)
4) That being said: Might it be easier for the Hawks to get into the playoffs winning the NFC West? I see both the Hawks and 49ers picking it up within a few weeks, not sure if Arizona can sustain... paints a better picture than fighting all the NFC for a wild card
5) R-E-L-A-X: The Packers definitely have slowly climbed themselves back into contention, even passing the Chargers. The Chargers were ranked #2 last week. NUMBER 2! And one loss (5-2) pulls them all the way down to where only two of seven rankings had them in the top 5. While the Packers off to a slow start have climbed back up. Is it the poise of a good team over the course of the season? Is that what the Seahawks will do or will they self destruct similar to the Saints (2-4)
How NFL Combined Power Rankings are calculated
I take 7 NFL Power Rankings and combine them and score them using relative placement to come up with NFL Combined Power Rankings. You can think of it like judging a dance contest with seven judges and 32 contestants. If a contestant (aka team) gets a placement of 1 through 5, they are eligible to be counted for combined rankings.
Relative placement is a "majority rules" type tallying system designed to work best with subjective judging and not place a lot of power in any one judges' scoresheet
blog link
http://geekswing.com/geek/nfl-combined- ... r-21-2014/
Surprisingly, this week one of the power rankings still had the Seahawks in the top 5 (#5) so there's your eligibility.
I kept the Washington Post "Fancy Stats" ranking because I was pleasantly surprised to find a power ranking that depended only on numbers and stats. Had to take out one... I took off Bleacher Report [insert your criticism here]. That being said, the Fancy Stats was definitely the outlier making me wonder what the formula is for Fancy Stats and how that might bode for optimism (or lack of) for the Seahawks.
Here are the rankings
NFL.com
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Eagles
4. Packers
5. Colts
(9. Seahawks)
SB Nation
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Packers
4. Eagles
5. Cardinals
(12. Seahawks)
ESPN
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Eagles
4. Colts
5. Cardinals
(11. Seahawks)
CBS Sports
1. Broncos
2. Cowboys
3. Colts
4. Chargers
5. Patriots
(10. Seahawks)
Fox Sports
1. Broncos
2. Eagles
3. Cowboys
4. Colts
5. Cardinals
(10. Seahawks)
Yahoo Sports
1. Broncos
2. Eagles
3. Cowboys
4. Colts
5. Packers
(8. Seahawks)
Washington Post Fancy Stats
1. Broncos
2. Colts
3. Chargers
4. Chiefs
5. Seahawks
NFL Combined Rankings
1st: Broncos
Votes: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
2nd: Cowboys
Votes: 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3 (NV)
3rd: Eagles
Votes: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 (NV, NV)
4th: Colts
Votes: 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5 (NV)
5th: Packers
Votes: 3, 4, 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV)
6th: Cardinals
Votes: 5, 5, 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV)
7th: Chargers
Votes: 3, 4 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
8th: Chiefs
Votes: 4 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
9th: TIE: Patriots and Seahawks
Votes: 5 (NV, NV, NV, NV, NV, NV)
Five interesting thoughts
1) Fancy Stats: the outlier: They put in the Chiefs at 4 and Hawks at 5. No other power ranking chose the Chiefs or Hawks in the top 5. They also did NOT put in the Cowboys or Eagles, every other ranking had them in. Makes you wonder what these non-subjective hard numbers being crunched are and lends some more support to the Football Outsider ranking the Hawks high too (covered in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=99349 )
2) Denver Broncos (coming in at number 1) is the only team to have gotten a top five vote from all seven of the rankings I used. Not only that, they got all number 1's. Unanimous. That means it seems they are not-arguably the number one team in football right now
3) Where is the NFC West? Cardinals come in with a ranking of 6 because they get three 5th place votes and that's it. Seattle scrapes in at 9th (helped by the Fancy Stats placement of them at #5). No sign of the 49ers. No sign of the Rams (except in Hawks fans nightmares)
4) That being said: Might it be easier for the Hawks to get into the playoffs winning the NFC West? I see both the Hawks and 49ers picking it up within a few weeks, not sure if Arizona can sustain... paints a better picture than fighting all the NFC for a wild card
5) R-E-L-A-X: The Packers definitely have slowly climbed themselves back into contention, even passing the Chargers. The Chargers were ranked #2 last week. NUMBER 2! And one loss (5-2) pulls them all the way down to where only two of seven rankings had them in the top 5. While the Packers off to a slow start have climbed back up. Is it the poise of a good team over the course of the season? Is that what the Seahawks will do or will they self destruct similar to the Saints (2-4)
How NFL Combined Power Rankings are calculated
I take 7 NFL Power Rankings and combine them and score them using relative placement to come up with NFL Combined Power Rankings. You can think of it like judging a dance contest with seven judges and 32 contestants. If a contestant (aka team) gets a placement of 1 through 5, they are eligible to be counted for combined rankings.
Relative placement is a "majority rules" type tallying system designed to work best with subjective judging and not place a lot of power in any one judges' scoresheet
blog link
http://geekswing.com/geek/nfl-combined- ... r-21-2014/
