Come the end of the season the table should be in the same order as the super league table - thats the point. the idea is simply to take into account whether a team has played more difficult games and be a better prediction of the final league standings through the year. for example i know we were all disappointed to lose this weekend but you could argue that its not a team you would expect to beat and not as bad as say salford who lost to castleford, a team you'd be looking to beat to make the 8.

Can you tell i was a bit bored this lunchtime?

Dont know why that posted 3 times!

If it is a completely different scoring sytem is that actually possible?

Nonetheless, I'm a sucker for a nicely laid out table like the one in the first post so I'm a fan

Hi MISSION,

Its a decent proposition, and one which will be interesting to follow if you keep it up.

I felt an algorithm coming on to include in your calculations- playing home/away considerations, the injured players potential ,the biased/incompetent officials conundrum, the artificial pitches location, the sacked coaches hypothesis, the Nandos syndrome and the devious owner's conglomeration.

..... Alas maybe not! I forgot to carry the 1 in line 24075 and it has all gone to pot.

Errm HULL FC and WARRINGTON DREW 20-20 !!

Quite right, so they did. Oops.

I've made one final adjustment so that the table will end up in the same order as the super league table at the end of the year, and that's to adjust for Millenium Magic (as for example Bradford play Leeds (group A) and Castleford play Wakefield (group B) so Castleford have more games against group B opposition to go than Bradford).

If my maths degree serves me well at the end of the season each teams score should be 31 less than the number of points they get in the league.

I thought the bit about Bradford trying to get a zero was probably the most telling insight...

you mean as in the old mantra 'they'll be lucky to get zero'

Looks like a fancy version of AP/Swiftcorn's 'Non-flat track bully SL table'

you missed the bit after the ellipsis

It is an interesting way to look at it

For example London start with games against Saints & Wolves

Cas start with Salford & Bulls

I know which start most teams would go with

what a load of codswallop. I know how you can get Bulls to top of league. Dont play rugby just toss a coin.
As previous contributor said . too much time on your hands

Crap response - it's an interesting analysis and has the potential to provide a more realistic assessment of a middle ranking club's position through the course of a season. Perhaps it's beyond your limited understanding?

Any chance of getting an updated table?

Will post it in full tomorrow. Bulls currently in 9th with both Hull teams on course to make the 8 at this early stage of the season. Catalans and Huddersfield currently predicted top of the league.

Full table:

For those that are interested, the win against Saints was the win Bradford needed to elevate Bradford to a predicted top 8 finish.

As the rounds go on the table will become more and more similar to the actual table. What would be more interesting is where we stand in comparison to last year's results against the same opposition At the same venue (Widnes subbing for Crusaders). At the moment, I think we're 7 points up.

Nope, still don't understand it...

i did understand it when it first went up as I could work it out from the table. But I cannot from this one, all the scores are odd whereas most should be even. eg Huddersfield 2 A wins worth 4 points each = 8 points plus 4 B wins worth 2 points = 8 points = total of 16.

I can see the principle, Its pretty obvious.
though I think some of the calulations may need adjusting from, -1 to 0 for the Bulls
Unless I have the factors wrong

Bulls :Starting points being in Cat B................................................ -2

Bulls 12 -Catalans 34.
Bulls no points for a loss, but no deduction for loosing against Cat A team........0
Catalans no points for beating a Cat B team

Castleford 12 - Bulls 20
Bulls no points for beating a Cat B team..................................................0
Castleford -2 points for loosing against a Cat B team

Bulls 16 -Wigan 54
Bulls no points for a loss, but no deduction for loosing against a Cat A team......0
Wigan no p[oints for winning against a Cat B team

Wakefield 18 - Bulls 36
Bulls no points for winning against a Cat B team.........................................0
Wakefield -2 points for loosing against a Cat B team

Bulls 10 - Warrington 23
Bulls no points for a loss..........................................................................0
Warrington no points for a win against a Cat B team

Hull KR 24 - Bulls 36
Bulls no points for winning against a Cat B team..........................................0
Hull KR 0 points for loosing against a Cat B team .

Bulls 12 - Saints 8
Bulls 2 points for winning against a Cat A team............................................2
Saints -2 points for loosing against a Cat B team

Bulls total ................................................................................0

but we are showing -1 according to Mission. So Mission means start the season not each game with +2 or -2 and then points awarded as he says, plus if its an A team minus if its a B team.

whatever the precise scoring system, and I am sure Mission will clarify and look at the reason for the odd one point difference, simply dividing into A and B teams is starting to be informative. As people have pointed out, St Helens have played 5 in group B and lost two of them, and their next three games are against A teams, no wonder changes were made. Hull have only played 2 of the A teams likewise Wakefield. on results so far Huddersfield are deservedly on top.

just spotted something. Mission, why do Huddersfield have 4 points more than Wigan when theres only one game v B difference? Hudds should get nothing as they should have beaten them, Wigan get 2 deducted so difference should be 2. any chance of a matrix to explain, columns: win draw loss, rows what happens when A plays A A plays B B plays A B plays B?

The extra -1 is to take into account we have to play an extra game against group A opposition to some other teams (Leeds at millenium magic). All teams playing group A opposition at MM get -1 points, all teams playing group B opposition at MM get +1 points.

To explain it another way, if every team won all their remaining matches against the group B teams and lost all their remaining matches against group A teams, this is how the table would end up. As af says, the table will become closer to the actual table as time progresses, and when there are no more matches to play it will end up the same. What it does at this stage is illustrate that taking the relative difficulty of the games played into account, Bradford further ahead of Salford, but not as far ahead of Hull KR, as the Super League table would suggest.

apologies, missed the MM adjustment, so got my head back around it. The big adjustments to this are "upsets" in terms of your designated A and B teams as shown by Saints. If as you say everybody wins against group B and loses against A then that is how the table would end up. I can see some peoples problems with that hypothetical situation, as in reality 2 B teams cannot both win the same game.

as I may have said before, I agree with the principle of weighting opposition for difficulty, just not sure about the weighting you have used - but even less sure about an alternative! So maybe an update each time the Bulls and those near us in the table do not perform as assumed.

Yes, the assumption is (and therefore the accuracy of the prediction depends on) that you would expect any group A team to beat any group B team, and a group B team beating a group A team would be termed an 'upset'.