NFBC Message Boards

I thought I would throw out the question of how everyone believes one should determine the most competitive leagues. Here are a few ideas:



1) Each League's cumulative Overall Points

2) Each League's cumulative Stats Re-Ranked (believe or not this would have different results compared to #1)

3) League Standard Deviations (Lowest) - filters out the point made below.

4) Other:_____________



Keep in mind, leagues with weaker managers in most cases produce even greater points for the stronger teams in such leagues, thus sqewing results. This is one of the major deficiences in relying on method #1.

I would say total league cumulative stats, then force rank all the leages and assign 1-30 points. Wouldn't this make the evaluation fair?



Spy

Chicago League 4's 1st place team is overall 59th. No other league's leader is further down. NY league 7 is 51st. It seems to me that the more competitive the league, the worse overall finish that league's leader will be.



Not too scientific, but it sounds good.

CoOp, I think there is some truth to that.



Next week I am going to look at #2 and #3. Should be interesting.