[J_Miles]

The sheets are interesting. The data seems slightly too qualitative for some things. Seemingly, a more logical and efficient scouting system would be entirely based off of a quantitative data set. Unless you have a single person assessing every single team, those rankings can be pretty much thrown out, because what one person gives an eight on a scale of one to ten, another might give a 6. It is all based on opinion and predisposition; indeed, the biggest problem with this system is bias: where one person might tend to be more lenient with their ranks, others might be much more hard to impress; therefore, your data can vary extremely. This is dangerous to do, and can also cause disputes of opinion. Pure numbers are the only way to truly have irrefutable evidence.

Another comment, I would like to agree that scouting EVERY match by a team is a much more reliable system. This system would help to make averages more accurate, and would give you less flawed data. Take for instance the possibility that a team has comms issues at the beginning of the competition (I know this happened to us, 2337, at Kettering), and then after their fourth match the team begins playing EXTRAORDINARILY well. You've then forfeited accurate data for their last six matches, which may show that they are a team whose scoring averages (or other relevant data) would have otherwise put them at the top of your list.