The Champions League

[Torpedo10]

What about coaches who have 2 or more teams?

[Colliwobblers]

What about coaches who have 2 or more teams?

All teams would have to be entered in knockout cup regardless of who the owner/coaches are.

Same for champions league, if you own 2 and both make the champions league then you have 2 in it :) but no tanking!

[Holz]

What about coaches who have 2 or more teams?

All teams would have to be entered in knockout cup regardless of who the owner/coaches are.

Same for champions league, if you own 2 and both make the champions league then you have 2 in it :) but no tanking!

you will be playing league games at the same time. So even if your playing yourself you would want to field a strong team or you will lose your league game.

[Colliwobblers]

What about coaches who have 2 or more teams?

All teams would have to be entered in knockout cup regardless of who the owner/coaches are.

Same for champions league, if you own 2 and both make the champions league then you have 2 in it :) but no tanking!

you will be playing league games at the same time. So even if your playing yourself you would want to field a strong team or you will lose your league game.

+1

[Nails]

My 3 teams are going to have so many results I won't know which team won what :'(

[roo boys!]

That's why I only have 1!  :D

[Holz]

Just to test out the ranking system this was the order based on last year ( not including finals)

How they are worked out is i have averaged out the games in the worlds and have worked out the average is 134.46 points per game. I did the same for the euro and its 130.62. I than did 134.46/130.62 = 1.0294. So all euro teams get their average multiplied by 1.0294 to get an equivalent score. So Wolves were 144.57 but adjusted to world scores they were 148.82

This is just a test and I will be doing this for all comps and will adjust scoring to the worlds scoring system and in my opinion this is the fairest way of adjusting scores. It what I do for determining prices with different exchange rates and is probably the fairest and most simple method. 

1. Pumas (W) 154.12
2. Wolves (E) 148.82
3. Suns (W) 146.65
4. Metal (E) 146.62
5.Cobras (W) 145.24
6.Magpies (W) 144.29
7.Roulette's (E) 143.09
8.Wolves (W) 140.65
9.Polar Bears (E) 138.16
10.Bears (W) 138.12
11.Warriors (W) 137.88
12.Bashers (E) 137.57
13.Armadillos (W) 137.41
14.Bison (E) 136.91
15.Titans (E) 135.15
15.Stalions (E) 135.15
17.Spetnaz (W) 133.65
18.Reindeer's (W) 133.35
19.Samurai (W) 132.71
20.Trolls (E) 131.76
20.Sons (E) 129.70
22.Valkyries (E) 129.70
23.Royals (W) 128.94
24.Sands (W) 128.65
25.Eagles (E) 127.72
26.Brewers (W) 127.65
27.Islanders (W) 125.94
28.Tigers (W) 125.12
29.Lions (E) 123.23
30. Revolution (W) 122.47
31.Dino's (E) 118.53
32.Destroyers (W) 117.47


   

[CrowsFan]

How did I not win?? :'(

[c4v3m4n]

How did I not win?? :'(

Luck wasnt factored in. :-\

[Holz]

How did I not win?? :'(

wolves didnt win either.

[ossie85]

How did I not win?? :'(

How did I not make the finals :(

Great stuff btw Holz!

[Torpedo10]

How did i make the Prelims and got pretty close to the final being ranked =7th on the euros list? I did finish 8th though, would've been amazing if I'd been pt through to the GF.

[Holz]

[MajorLazer]

If I don't win this Champions League, I think it's rigged. :P

[c4v3m4n]

Holz, while I appreciate all of the effort you have put into your ranking system, there are a couple of constructive criticisms that I have.

Your ranking doesnt take into account the following:

• LTI to key players that will be involved in 2013 season
• Your averages are based in scores each week and teams change each week.
• The massive amount of trades that have occurred in the post-season

So, I would like to propose a new alternative which I believe is fairer as it accounts for all of the above....

..and is far more complicated. :P



PART ONE

I believe that instead of ranking the teams based on weekly score averages, that it should be based on the strength of your squad. Now this is where it gets kind of tricky.

14 EXV teams with 35 players vs. 18 WXV teams with 46 players.

Need to find a way of normalising it. Just so happens there is a way to do so.

At the end of Round 14 of the WXV Draft, the same number of players were taken at the end of Round 18 of the EXV draft.

Which then means that at the end of the Round 21 in the WXV draft, the same number of players were taken at the end of the Round 27 of the EXV Draft.

21 rounds x 18 players = 378 players
27 rounds x 14 players = 378 players.

Therefore, a EXV squad of 27 players is equal to a WXV squad of 21 players.

Good number and a good place to start.



PART TWO

So, now that we have our normalisation of squad sizes, we then just take the 27 highest averaging players from 2012 from each EXV team, average them, and we have our EXV team ranking. Similarly with the WXV, take the 21 highest averaging from 2012 from each, average them and you have your WXV team ranking.

Now to allow for LTIs (like Ball, LeCras etc.) they would be included based on their 2011 average.

So after that, we have a rankings for our the EXV competition and the WXV competition.



PART THREE

Lastly, we need to find a way to normalise the scores between SC and DT and while this may seem tricky, it's not really.

Thanks to TooSerious, the havey SC/DT ratios for each individual player.

I'll chuck them all in a spreadsheet and then average it out giving the closest thing to an official SC/DT ratio.

Use that ratio on the EXV rankings and it'd bring them in line with the WXV rankings.



CONCLUSION

:o

Hope that all makes some kind of sense. This IMO, would be a fairer ranking system. It accounts for LTIs, off-season trades, squad strengths and the SC/DT ratio.

Of course, none of the above can really be calculated until lists have been finalised.

But once they have, I can then work on calculating my version of the seeding/ranking system along with a ratio.

Thoughts?