10-20-2015, 08:07 PM
More of an explanation from Coley
http://espn.go.com/blog/cincinnati-bengals/post/_/id/19672/bengals-cardinals-espn-power-rankings-nfl-out-ranked-how-heck
Coley Harvey, ESPN Staff Writer
3
Shares
email
print
comment
CINCINNATI -- Bengals fans, I've heard your yells, yelps, yawps and other various exclamations all day Tuesday.
Trust me, I understand them completely. Part of me actually was ready to raise hell, too, when I saw late in the morning where the team stood in ESPN's Power Rankings.
In case you missed it, the Bengals ended up ranking fifth; the same spot they have occupied the past three weeks. Ahead of them were the following four teams: No. 1 the New England Patriots (5-0), No. 2 the Green Bay Packers (6-0), No. 3 the Denver Broncos (6-0) and ... drum roll, please ... at No. 4, the Arizona Cardinals (4-2).
Wait, what? How does a team that's 6-0 like the Bengals end up ranking below a team that has two losses?
That was the big question on my mind for much of the day, much like it was for many of you. My Twitter mentions, Facebook notifications and text-message alerts show that fully. Then there were the quizzical looks I received from other members of the Bengals media while working at Paul Brown Stadium. They all had the same question.
Curious to know how this rankings injustice happened, I hunted for answers.
Here's what my editors told me about ESPN's Power Rankings, and why the Bengals may have been ranked so comparatively low.
In recent weeks, ESPN's Power Rankings process has been tweaked. It's no longer a simple vote numbering the teams 1-32 the way it had been in the past. Lately, the process involves advanced metrics and computer processes and data and stuff that all goes way over this writer's head. Voters are now required to answer one specific question: "Which team should rank higher?"
Just like I did my first two years on the Bengals beat, I continue to participate in the voting process this season. I've voted both the new and the old way. This different method involves a random assortment of matchups which pose the question above to voters each time they cast a vote. For example, would the one-win Jacksonville Jaguars rank higher than the six-win Bengals? Odds are, each voter would say no. Then a new matchup is presented.
"In the world of data analysis," I was told, "this is considered one of the most reliable methods to gather predictions and opinions."
It's from those responses that the rankings emerge. This week we had more than 2,000 votes cast. I was also told the purpose of this rankings system is to judge teams by overall team strength and not wins and losses.
Apparently the Bengals and Cardinals were nearly tied, but the combination of votes slightly favored the Cardinals. Voters didn't necessarily think Arizona was a more successful team, but this exercise showed the more than 80 voters believed they were a stronger and more complete team.
Personally, I disagree. I'm glad ESPN Stats & Information's Marty Callinan did, too. He so effectively wrote here about why the Bengals actually are a more complete team at this stage.
Perhaps the best words we can all take from this came from Twitter user @brooksob53. He/she so eloquently wrote: "we get to play the Cards and Broncos anyways."
Amen. Later this season, Tuesday's debate can be put to rest on the field when the Bengals will actually find out whether they are better than both Arizona and Denver.
Comments
http://espn.go.com/blog/cincinnati-bengals/post/_/id/19672/bengals-cardinals-espn-power-rankings-nfl-out-ranked-how-heck
Coley Harvey, ESPN Staff Writer
3
Shares
comment
CINCINNATI -- Bengals fans, I've heard your yells, yelps, yawps and other various exclamations all day Tuesday.
Trust me, I understand them completely. Part of me actually was ready to raise hell, too, when I saw late in the morning where the team stood in ESPN's Power Rankings.
In case you missed it, the Bengals ended up ranking fifth; the same spot they have occupied the past three weeks. Ahead of them were the following four teams: No. 1 the New England Patriots (5-0), No. 2 the Green Bay Packers (6-0), No. 3 the Denver Broncos (6-0) and ... drum roll, please ... at No. 4, the Arizona Cardinals (4-2).
Wait, what? How does a team that's 6-0 like the Bengals end up ranking below a team that has two losses?
That was the big question on my mind for much of the day, much like it was for many of you. My Twitter mentions, Facebook notifications and text-message alerts show that fully. Then there were the quizzical looks I received from other members of the Bengals media while working at Paul Brown Stadium. They all had the same question.
Curious to know how this rankings injustice happened, I hunted for answers.
Here's what my editors told me about ESPN's Power Rankings, and why the Bengals may have been ranked so comparatively low.
In recent weeks, ESPN's Power Rankings process has been tweaked. It's no longer a simple vote numbering the teams 1-32 the way it had been in the past. Lately, the process involves advanced metrics and computer processes and data and stuff that all goes way over this writer's head. Voters are now required to answer one specific question: "Which team should rank higher?"
Just like I did my first two years on the Bengals beat, I continue to participate in the voting process this season. I've voted both the new and the old way. This different method involves a random assortment of matchups which pose the question above to voters each time they cast a vote. For example, would the one-win Jacksonville Jaguars rank higher than the six-win Bengals? Odds are, each voter would say no. Then a new matchup is presented.
"In the world of data analysis," I was told, "this is considered one of the most reliable methods to gather predictions and opinions."
It's from those responses that the rankings emerge. This week we had more than 2,000 votes cast. I was also told the purpose of this rankings system is to judge teams by overall team strength and not wins and losses.
Apparently the Bengals and Cardinals were nearly tied, but the combination of votes slightly favored the Cardinals. Voters didn't necessarily think Arizona was a more successful team, but this exercise showed the more than 80 voters believed they were a stronger and more complete team.
Personally, I disagree. I'm glad ESPN Stats & Information's Marty Callinan did, too. He so effectively wrote here about why the Bengals actually are a more complete team at this stage.
Perhaps the best words we can all take from this came from Twitter user @brooksob53. He/she so eloquently wrote: "we get to play the Cards and Broncos anyways."
Amen. Later this season, Tuesday's debate can be put to rest on the field when the Bengals will actually find out whether they are better than both Arizona and Denver.
Comments
Winning makes believers of us all
