The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

ESPN's Ultimate team rankings are out for 2011.  Miami is 101 out of 122 in the overall category.  That's pretty sad. I'm not sure we should be behind the New Jersey Nets though. I haven't gone through all the categories to see where they ranked Miami yet.  Discuss.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings

The Marlins are #69. 

Funny. 

My epically inept San Diego Padres (#54) who have never won a title are rated two slots higher than the Los Angeles Lakers...and 36 slots higher than the SF 49ers (#90).

What unpainted clown at ESPN Mag came up with this goofiness?

They really lose some credibility with this.

The Packers have one championship in the current era, but are rated #1 in the TTR category (described as championships either won or expected during current fan's lifetimes) and the Lakers sit at 15?

The Packers have 2 titles in the current era (96 is post-salary cap).

Still, this list seems to have been made by someone who was judging teams based almost entirely on 2010.

Yes and no.

The categories. 

all but two are based on the current situation, the first and last are a bit longer.

I suspect the problem is that there are several categories that they in effect have said are all equally important. Pesonally I don't think that's true. To me winning is more important than say coaching for example. Likewise, doesn't bang for the buck already have another category affordability already kinda built into it? Shouldn't there just be a straight wins category or something so that if you are winning, that kinda makes up for a less affordable rating?

I think they made a few statistical gaffs that if corrected would probably make this a bit more meaningful.

The category specifically being discussed was "title track" (TTR), in which the Packers were rated #1.  Title track is defined as championships won or expected in a current fan's lifetime; I see no way that the Packers should be ahead of the Celtics, Lakers, or Yankees.

I think it's fair to separate the two.

The Patriots are not affordable, but give you a great bang-for-the-buck.  The Raiders are very affordable, but give a horrible bang-for-the-buck.

If your goal is simply to go to an NFL game (but you don't have any rooting interest in the home team), affordability is very important, while bang-for-the-buck is nearly meaningless.

From my understanding its not an "all time" ranking of franchises. Just a ranking of franchises in 2011 based on a few things. And if my understanding is correct then I feel Miami is about where they should be honestly.

We have poor ownership, we have a head coach who the owner clearly doesn't want, we have no marquee players (I mean our best players is an o-linemen), the stadium while not horrible isn't good enough to get another super bowl unless we add a roof, the few HOME playoff games we have had recently we haven't sold out, regular season games the stadium looks half empty 5 min prior to kickoff, and we have won nothing recently and the immediate future is looking bleak. 101 is fair.

If it was an ALL TIME ranking...then 101 is foolish obviously. We should be much higher.

My point is that bang-for-the-buck takes into consideration your team's affordability, but there already was a category called affordability. In essence, what they did was factor affordability into their rankings twice.

Let me give you an example. Lets say the Raider are "rated" like so:

Winning %: 75 out of 100. (assume this our "bang" component)
Affordability: 25 out of 100. (the "buck" part)

Average the 2 you get 50, which is Oakland's "bang" for the "buck" rating. But the Raiders would have been "rated" like this in ESPN's rating system:

Bang for the buck: 50 out of 100.
Affordability: 25 out of 100.


Average the 2 you get 37.5. You have just artificially inflated the Raider's "Bang" and "Buck" stats by figuring in affordability twice.

What they should have done in my opinion is either given a "bang" category that with the affordability category would have given you a bang for the buck rating, or simply had the "bang-for-the-buck" category and not the affordability category. It's not that big of deal since their are other categories as well, but still you are figuring affordability into the equation twice no matter how you slice it. That hurts a team that has a low score on affordability like New England and helps a team that has a high score like Oakland.

What they actually did was give you a "bang" category (title track), a "buck" category (affordability), and a bang-for-the-buck category.