byau
Active member
First, the individual rankings I used.
NFL.com
1. Chargers
2. Seahawks
3. Broncos
4. Bengals
5. Eagles
SBNation
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Bengals
5. Cardinals
ESPN.go.com
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Eagles
5. Bengals
CBS Sports
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Cowboys
5. Eagles
FOX Sports
1. Chargers
2. Seahawks
3. Broncos
4. Colts
5. 49ers
Bleacher Report
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Colts
5. Bengals
Yahoo Sports
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Bengals
4. Chargers
5. Eagles
And the combined rankings (using a system called relative placement)
Seahawks: 1st (VOTES: Five 1st, Two 2nd)
Broncos: 2nd (VOTES: Five 2nd, Two 3rd)
Chargers: 3rd (VOTES: Two 1st, Four 3rd, One 4th)
Bengals: 4th (VOTES: One 3rd, Two 4th, Two 5th)
Eagles: 5th (VOTES: One 4th, Three 5th)
Colts: 6th (VOTES: Two 4th)
Cowboys: 7th (VOTES: One 4th)
Cardinals and 49ers tied for 8th: (VOTES: One 5th)
==
If you're curious about the "relative placement" judging system:
The strength in it: it never gives power to just one "judge" (aka one specific power ranking), which can be extremely helpful when it is a very subjective competition (such as NFL football rankings)
I come from a background of doing a lot of swing dance competition judging. Without getting into it, there are a lot of styles to swing dancing and at an elite level you have to basically compare apples to oranges and decide which you like better. So you have to combine the scoring of seven different judges and come up with a final placement.
For that reason, I'm always interested in scoring and rankings of any sort. Especially when it is subjective like NFL football. In this case, instead of taking any one specific ranking into account, I like taking them all into account to come up with a "final" power ranking (combined power rankings)
Like swing dancing, with professional sports so many factors at an elite level and each author prizes apples or oranges better and uses that as a filter.
Some rankings might value straight stats. (subjective, which stats?)
Some might value better offense. (subjective, WR? RB? QB? 3rd down conversion?)
Some might value better defense (subjective: run defense? pass defense?)
Which is why you'll see differences in rankings. So if you just depend on one power ranking, you are assuming the person doing the ranking has the best criteria. When you combine them, you are using every judges' criteria to come up with which team has the best of all the best criteria so to speak.
That being said, the main judging system used is called "relative placement" as a way of tallying all judges scores. And not giving too much power to any one judge
Without explaining relative placement too much, combining all seven
Seahawks are a clear first (majority of first place votes)
Broncos are a clear second (majority of first and second place votes)
Chargers are a clear third (majority of first, second, and third place votes)
After that it gets a bit muddled as no team got a majority of first, second, third, and fourth place votes. You had to go to a majority of first, second, third, fourth, and fifth place votes just to get a fourth place majority.
Just some interesting number crunching and score tallying.
I really like relative placement because it never gives power to just one "judge", which can be extremely helpful when it is a very subjective competition.
NFL.com
1. Chargers
2. Seahawks
3. Broncos
4. Bengals
5. Eagles
SBNation
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Bengals
5. Cardinals
ESPN.go.com
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Eagles
5. Bengals
CBS Sports
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Cowboys
5. Eagles
FOX Sports
1. Chargers
2. Seahawks
3. Broncos
4. Colts
5. 49ers
Bleacher Report
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Chargers
4. Colts
5. Bengals
Yahoo Sports
1. Seahawks
2. Broncos
3. Bengals
4. Chargers
5. Eagles
And the combined rankings (using a system called relative placement)
Seahawks: 1st (VOTES: Five 1st, Two 2nd)
Broncos: 2nd (VOTES: Five 2nd, Two 3rd)
Chargers: 3rd (VOTES: Two 1st, Four 3rd, One 4th)
Bengals: 4th (VOTES: One 3rd, Two 4th, Two 5th)
Eagles: 5th (VOTES: One 4th, Three 5th)
Colts: 6th (VOTES: Two 4th)
Cowboys: 7th (VOTES: One 4th)
Cardinals and 49ers tied for 8th: (VOTES: One 5th)
==
If you're curious about the "relative placement" judging system:
The strength in it: it never gives power to just one "judge" (aka one specific power ranking), which can be extremely helpful when it is a very subjective competition (such as NFL football rankings)
I come from a background of doing a lot of swing dance competition judging. Without getting into it, there are a lot of styles to swing dancing and at an elite level you have to basically compare apples to oranges and decide which you like better. So you have to combine the scoring of seven different judges and come up with a final placement.
For that reason, I'm always interested in scoring and rankings of any sort. Especially when it is subjective like NFL football. In this case, instead of taking any one specific ranking into account, I like taking them all into account to come up with a "final" power ranking (combined power rankings)
Like swing dancing, with professional sports so many factors at an elite level and each author prizes apples or oranges better and uses that as a filter.
Some rankings might value straight stats. (subjective, which stats?)
Some might value better offense. (subjective, WR? RB? QB? 3rd down conversion?)
Some might value better defense (subjective: run defense? pass defense?)
Which is why you'll see differences in rankings. So if you just depend on one power ranking, you are assuming the person doing the ranking has the best criteria. When you combine them, you are using every judges' criteria to come up with which team has the best of all the best criteria so to speak.
That being said, the main judging system used is called "relative placement" as a way of tallying all judges scores. And not giving too much power to any one judge
Without explaining relative placement too much, combining all seven
Seahawks are a clear first (majority of first place votes)
Broncos are a clear second (majority of first and second place votes)
Chargers are a clear third (majority of first, second, and third place votes)
After that it gets a bit muddled as no team got a majority of first, second, third, and fourth place votes. You had to go to a majority of first, second, third, fourth, and fifth place votes just to get a fourth place majority.
Just some interesting number crunching and score tallying.
I really like relative placement because it never gives power to just one "judge", which can be extremely helpful when it is a very subjective competition.