That makes a change! Usually I get abusive mail from people who think my ratings are complete crap (usually fans struggling to accept that their team is actually pretty average or worse, even though they won last week).
Anyway, it's pretty complex, but basically you get two points for a win, plus whatever % you win by. eg if you win 150 to 100 you get 2 + 1.50 = 3.50 points. the lsing team just gets the % - in the example above, 0.67.
then the scores are adjusted according to who you played - eg if you played Essendon your score is scaled up cos they rate so highly, if you played the Saints it's scaled down cos they rate so low.
So the Eagles rating has gone up a little in the past two weeks, but not by much cos they beat two low-rated teams.
Then the ratings are calculated with a sliding scale, this weeks score counts 100%, and games are scaled down as they slip into the past. It goes back a total of about 18 games I think, but the games at the end of that don't contribute very much at all to the score (1% by the end!).
Finally, they're all scaled so the average is 100. This is just so you can see easily if a team is "above average" (over 100) or "below average" (under 100).
While I'm plugging the site, there's a message-board on there as well which is pretty quiet - if anyone could give it a kick along every now and then I'd appreciate it!
