Well, I managed not to post my predictions before the weekend—I guess that’s what happens when you try to juggle to many things. I had two results correct from the 5 games I called. Here’s what I thought would happen, alongside what really did.
| Game | Projected Winner | Projected Score | Actual Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| COL @ KC | KC | 1-2 | 2-3 |
| TOR @ DC | DC | 0-1 | 1-4 |
| CLB @ NY | — | 1-1 | 0-2 |
| RSL @ CHV | — | 1-1 | 1-3 |
| DAL @ HOU | HOU | 0-1 | 3-3 |
I’d called one other game, the Wednesday night game of New England @ Kansas City. I think Kansas City will take this one 1-2, New England has too many players out due to injury or suspension to win this one on the road against a good looking Kansas City.
My scariness rankings are starting to make sense. They’ll really clear up over the next couple of weeks though, at this point there’s juts not enough data. Here’s my table at the momement:
| Ranking | Team | Points |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | KC | 4.08 |
| 2 | CHI | 2.48 |
| 3 | COL | 1.92 |
| 3 | NY | 1.92 |
| 5 | CHV | 1.56 |
| 6 | DAL | 1.16 |
| 7 | NE | 0.96 |
| 8 | RSL | 0.8 |
| 9 | DC | 0.54 |
| 9 | LA | 0.54 |
| 9 | HOU | 0.54 |
| 12 | CLB | 0.48 |
| 13 | SAN | 0 |
| 13 | TOR | 0 |
Scariness is a function of a team’s PPG and their opponents PPG in a weighted moving average. Last year, I was fancier than this, but I’m not sure it really matters.
