Seven Great Reasons the NFL Should Scale QB Passer Ratings to 100

The Quarterback (QB) Passer Rating System is a mathematical formula that gauges the performance of a quarterback over any period using stats over that period, whether a single game, series of games, year, career, etc. The scores in the rating system ranges from 0 to 158.3


What’s with the 158.3 base? (Maximum or perfect rating)

I don’t know, but I’ll bet heavily on the two benchmarks in the system were the reason. A rating of 66.7 was deemed an “average” performance, while 100 was deemed “excellent”. The former, if you didn’t recognize it, is 2/3 of 100 or a mark you might expect on a report card of an “average” student. The latter may be perfection on a report card, but it’s close enough to “excellent” to call it that. That’s no coincidence these two benchmarks are such familiar numbers. Whatever the original math, I’m betting someone scaled things so they got these two benchmarks, and the casualty was the maximum, best, or perfect rating, or “base” in math, of 158.3, arguably the oddest “base” of any rating system I’ve ever seen. Think of bases for ratings like the thumbs up system (2), stars system (5), gymnastic or diving judge scores (10), report cards (100), and so on. None look anything like 158.3!


Why change the scaling base to 100?

I’ll give you seven great reasons I can think of right now, with more I’m sure I haven’t thought of, then explain them all.

  1. A 100 base is way easier to make sense of than 158.3
  2. You can drop the decimal keep ratings shorter and easier
  3. You can use letter grades as a substitute for general discussion
  4. It’s way easier to explain, especially to kids
  5. It’s way easier for commentators/writers to use
  6. You can redefine the benchmarks that are now out of date
  7. NFL 100 is the perfectly branded season to change to the 100 based system


1. It’s way easier to make sense of

Everybody is familiar with the 100 base, including people not good at math. You get all kinds of stats in percentages, which are out of 100. Your dollar has 100 cents in it, which also make some fractions familiar, like a quarter is 25 out of 100, and so on with money conversion. Your report cards, and most school marks might have a letter grades with them, but those letter grades correspond to ranges of marks that are percentages, or out of 100 base. In these ways, when you hear a passer rating of something like 78 (out of 100), you have an idea how close or far away it was from perfection in a way that you can make some quick and decent sense of it. Could you have gotten a similar idea if you heard a QB had a 123.5 rating in the current system out of 158.3? That’s the current system equivalent to the 78 out of 100 proposed.


2. You can drop the decimal to have shorter numbers

Until you compare very similar QB ratings in the 100 system I am proposing, you can drop the decimal. Do you really need to know if a QB’s passer rating for a game was 78.2 rather than just 78? In the 100 system, without decimals, ratings could also only have 2 digits max, not 3 or 4 in the current system, pending if you used the decimal. I’m eliminating the horrid performances of single digit ratings, of course, in this proposal, but there’d be room for that any time it happens.


3. You can use letter grades equivalents instead of numbers

If you want to make it even simpler, use a letter grade system even the kids are familiar with! The QB got a B+ rating for that 78 (out of 100) ratings game, adding the 78 numeric rating if you want to be more specific. You can also give QB report cards with a letter grade per game like each were a subject, which, in game film study, each team is like a subject unto its own.


4. It’s way easier to explain, especially to kids

How hard do you think it would be to explain the 100 base system to someone as compared to the 158.3 system? If you didn’t come to a clear answer, what about explaining it to kids? What about explaining a letter grade system to a kid to say a QB had a B+ game last night, if you didn’t even want to use that 78 rating? How old do you think a kid has to be to understand letter grades versus a 158.3 base system?


5. It’s way easier for commentators/writers to use

With all the examples of how much easier to use the 100 system would be compared to the 158.3 system, how much easier would it be for commentators and writers to reference QB ratings out of 100 rather than 158.3. They constantly alienate viewers, listeners, and readers, every time they start throwing out QB ratings beyond 100 where the first and most obvious questions would be, what is this thing measured out of if someone can get above 100, and what does that rating really mean then? Even if they knew the 158.3 base, getting context would be challenging unless they were familiar with other ratings they had memorized, but that’s a lot of work!


6. You can redefine the “average” and “excellent” benchmarks

Aside from ease of use in many ways, for the geeks and statisticians who can use any base easily enough, the most compelling reason to change the base to 100 is that it allows you to reset those “average” and “excellent” benchmarks that are now completely misleading. In 2017, the entire league’s QB rating (as if one QB played every snap a QB took), was 88.6 (in the 158.3 system). Given the “average” benchmark of 66.7 set in a time when passing wasn’t nearly as prolific as now, that mean the “average” QB in 2017 was pretty good since 88.6 is closer to 100 “excellent” than 66.7 “average”, where halfway between those benchmarks (83.3) could denote “good”. Surely, we can’t have all the QBs in the league averaging out to be “pretty good”, can we?

So what would the “average” score in the new QB system be? Coincidentally, the 88.6 out of 158.3 league average in 2017 would convert to 63.1 out of 100. That’s pretty close to the original 66.7 base that you could leave it at that since the league is still becoming more passing prolific. Using 63 as average basically leaves you with a small version of the same problem, that the “average” QB in the NFL would be better than average statistically already, that will only get worse in the next few years. If you didn’t want to use the decimal as suggested, you could use a round value of 65, or 67.

I don’t have as nice a suggestion for an “excellent” benchmark. However, if 66.7 in the 158.3 system became 88.6 now, then 100 should become at least 121.9 if the same gap were applied (21.9 increase for average), or 77 out of 100. For familiarity sake, and increasingly pass prolific direction of the NFL, I will suggest a score of 80 out of 100. That’s an A- letter grade, which takes one out of the B range associated with second rate, even if better than average, into some form of “excellence”. The 80 out of 100 translate to 126.6 in the 158.3 system for those familiar with that system. The 80 score will also make it a little harder to get an “excellent” game rating, so that excellence is not too easy to attain. It wouldn’t be all that “excellent” if too many people were reaching it often, would it?


7. It’s the NFL 100 season!

Just for marketing sake, or maybe an omen to be considered, this named NFL 100 season would be a symbolic season to change the QB passer rating system from a base of 158.3 to 100.


Any more good reasons? Do you really need more?

I’ve named seven great reasons for converting to a 100 base QB passer rating system. I’m sure there are more. But really, do I need more given how great these reasons are?

Was Rio 2016 the WORST Olympic Games You’ve Ever Seen?

It was in my mind, which only goes back to Los Angeles 1984, but it wasn’t even close for me.

Sure, there were some nice and memorable moments. There has to be some at the Olympics. However, for how many I expect of an Olympics, there weren’t nearly enough.

And then there were all the overhanging clouds of the empty seats, drug bans, zika, booing, green unclean water, lack of economics, excess of politics and so on. And wait till you see the “legacy” these games will leave behind! That’s if they get through the Paralympics first. Sounds like they’re near bankrupt for it.

Anyway, in my limited memory of some 32 years, I declare these games the worst ever (that I’ve seen).

Are You Impressed By Super Bowl Half Time Shows Any More?

Another year, another Super Bowl and another crappy Super Bowl half-time show.

I don’t know if there’s too much hype, or that our expectations had been weened in years past to expect a lot of half time shows, but I think whoever has been setting up these things have just been making crappy decisions for several years now.

For example, was there any singing at this year’s half time show? Sure, they hit a few notes, but there wasn’t a lot of it, and what was there was weak!

Somebody get me a good half time show one of these years, would ya? Or just can it and have something stupid. At least our expectations won’t be raised and failed miserably!

That was Beyonce bad! And more of a bust than previous years, even, pun intended!

Quick Six Question Facebook Addiction Test

The Bergen Facebook Addiction Test was developed by Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Doctor of Psychology and head of the Facebook Addiction study at the University of Bergen (UiB). It consists of six quick questions, which is great to get through. However, it is self-diagnosed. So if you are in denial about how you should truly answer the question, well, the test won’t identify you as a Facebook addict and you’ll continue to be in denial.

Continue reading

Things to Think About in Using WordPress’ User Ratings Feature

In early July 2009, WordPress allowed its bloggers to install user rating systems on their blogs as a way to get more feedback. The outstanding How to video below, from, shows the main features of the system. This post contains how I came to decide which options and features within the options to choose to enable on my blog, coming from a graphic designer, analyst and psychology enthusiast backgroung. For those who have enabled it or are thinking about it, this may be of help. Please feel free to give feedback because I might change my mind on a few things given fresh new perspectives.


Do I want to be judged at all?
That was my first question. There are a lot of nasty people out there who can only make anything of themselves by putting down others. All you have to do is look at YouTube feedback on any video gone viral or seen to any extent to see comments and such, and presumably some ratings, too, coming out of nowhere. After all, it’s easier to one-click a rating than to have to write a whole comment, though the latter offers identification of the commenter. There are a lot of fair judging, too, with good and bad ratings, but it’s a free for all. Rival bloggers/sites can also come to spam you with bad ratings. That said, though, I decided to try… for now.

Which judging system, stars or Nero?
From the video above, there is a five star system or a thumbs up/down (Nero) system for users to rate. I would say if you put any sort of “craftsmanship” into your blog and want feedback on that, then the stars system is for you. Otherwise, the Nero system is sufficient, like if you want to know if people liked or didn’t like a certain piece so maybe you can produce more similar content. Readers can also use this to indicate whether they agree or disagree, but such a menu choice is less universal to every post. A lot of text media news sites, which read like blogs, use the Nero system. However, their systems are often seen as “recommend” (without the negative opposite) rather than thumbs up/down. But if it’s good enough for them, and they would have done a lot of research on it, then it’s good enough for me.

Star rating descriptions?
The default is Very poor, Poor, Average, Good, Excellent, which is not ideal for a lot of situations, but it is for many, of course. I would say that if you have an opinion blog, you might try Strong Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree and Strongly Agree. I only bring that up because, of course, blogging is often a means of self-expression and is full of opinions. Again, too bad it can’t be customized for each post since I have posts of graphics and opinions, but for the more generic uses, the Nero system works better.
LEFT AS DEFAULT, but think about other rating names if you have an opinion blog

Ratings Above or Below post?
Having a rating at the top of your post is good to encourage reading if you happen to have a good rating, because with the ratings are the current results up to time of post reading. Inevitably, though, you’re going to have some bad ratings and that’s not good to show. Besides, why influence the readers before they read your post? And don’t say it doesn’t, because it most certainly does! Let them judge your work on neutral grounds. Also, if they quickly see it’s not what they’re looking for, a few might just click a poor rating before leaving, even though it has nothing to do with the quality of your work but was maybe the fault of the search terms they used and/or the search engine returning results. The ratings on top also really looks awkward in some WordPress templates, just kind of floating around. Finally, by the time readers have gotten to your post, they have given you the “page view” for your stats. Make them at least scroll through the post to judge it. Having ratings below the post a good way to both, get some fair judgment and make those with bad intentions work a bit for their malice. Ratings below the post will get fewer responses, but better quality responses.

Rate Posts, Pages or Comments?
For me, rating posts is a no-brainer. That’s what I really want to get feedback on. Blogs are mostly composed of posts, not pages, for the most part so if you want feedback for your blog, post feedback is the way to go. Pages are sometimes more static, listing things or providing guidance, and maybe not as exciting. However, you may want to assess their value as a resource. If this were true , you might consider not only consider enabling ratings, but also a star system since level of quality is important here. And yes, you can enable different systems for different features of your blog. It’s just too bad you can’t do that for separate posts like having a choice with each post because some may well could use one rating system rather than another. Finally, for Comments, you can enable ratings to have others judge what others say or what you say in return. For “arguments” or “debates” brewing, this might be a good way to get additional feedback to those who take the time to leave comments. Again, I see the text media news sites do this and I will trust them on it.

Size of ratings system on your post?
Small can be elegant, yes, but if you want to get people’s attention in hopes they’ll give feedback, large is the way to go. It’s not that large, to be honest with you. And at the end, with all the other clutter like tags and categories, if you have those on your blog, large will only help the rating system stand out.

Font choice, size, colour and weight?
The default seems to be Interpret. I have never heard of that font but I do know Verdana has been around for a long time so just about every computer has it. It’s a nice, crisp, wide font your reader’s computer won’t likely substitute with another to guarantee they will see it as you will see it. The width of Verdana will help make your rating system more visible. Add some colour to it to get attention, though I went with blue rather than red in which my links all appear to differentiate it. I chose #0000ff blue. That’s a number sign, four zeroes and two f, which makes a hexadecimal code for the blue headers you see on this post. I don’t recommend italics because they don’t appear “smooth” on some machines. As for size, again, put some control to it. I choose 12 px (pixels) because that is about the size of the blog post body text. I would say that’s the best guideline for choosing a size. Choose one and view it in your blog. Then change it if you need to. All those font features might be a bit garish for some but experiment and choose as you like it.
VERDANA, 12 px, 0000ff BLUE and BOLD TEXT

Your blog probably reads from the left and is aligned at least to the left. Even justified alignment has a straight left margin. For all the fanciful centre alignment and all, left is easiest to read.

Line Height
General rule of design is at least 125% of your font size. So for me, at 12 px text size (see above), the default of 16 px is fine. I don’t need to be picky for 15 px to be exact. A little more “white space” never hurts, especially if you want to make something stand out.
16px but really, AT LEAST 125% OF FONT SIZE

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Reading Level: 6.5