Originally Posted by VisionQuest220
That is really a fantastic application and one that will certainly make it easy for teams to plan. We've been real fans of your site and the rankings you've been doing and appreciate the way you are using technology to bring all of this data into forms that make it really easy to see and understand.
I have a suggestion for you but I don't know how feasible it would be to make happen. Regardless, here it is...
The Power Rankings are not necessarily the most accurate representation of which team is really "the best" at any given time. The reason I say this is because it is based on raw data and not on any kind of average. I'll give you an example of what I mean using baseball as a comparison.
Each year, Major League Baseball crowns a batting champion and that title is won by the player with the highest batting average. However, in order to qualify for the title, a player must have a minimum number of plate appearances. The reason there is a minimum plate appearances requirement is so that the batting champ isn't a guy with 50 appearances and a .375 average. As it stands right now at the All-Star break, the minimum number of plate appearances required for consideration is 295.
I propose that a more accurate way to Power Rank the teams would be take the number of points they have earned using the same method of calculating those points as you do right now but to then average those points by the number of events it took for the team to earn them. Teams would then be ranked according to their average but only those teams with a minimum number of events completed would qualify. (The number of events completed would be the counterpart to plate appearances in the batting average example.)
The reason I think this is a more accurate method for ranking is because the average would serve to level the playing field for teams that do not have the geographic advantage of being in an area where contests are available to them almost every weekend of the season. It would also take into account the times that a team has competed in an event and not finished in the Top 10 in any category or in the Overall rankings. The average would be based on all the events a team has entered and not just the ones in which points were earned.
This is my suggestion.
That's why I never did pay too much attention to the rankings. Some of these guys do 30-40 comps a year. So they could have a bad year and still beat someone who had a fantastic year with only 12 comps in. I like the 'average' angle...it sort of puts everything in perspective.