Posted by colonels19 on 3/4/2011 10:48:00 PM (view original):
fair enough, it's something I do so you'd be against it...I'm used to your line of discussion by now...

Posted by dcy0827 on 3/5/2011 12:39:00 AM (view original):
I'm actually glad that Colonels showed up in this thread.  I seem to remember several seasons ago that a 9 win team made it into the PIT and Colonels called BS on it.  I also seem to remember just about everyone taking the opposite view that he had.  Now it would appear that most everyone in this thread agrees with him that making any kind of postseason tournament with a win total this low is garbage.  My how the times have changed.   :^)  Been awfully quiet lately Trevor, things going okay?

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/5/2011 7:20:00 AM (view original):
What ratings are your favorites, Colonels(other than yours, any sport)?

And I never would have been in favor of a losing record getting in.

Having a winning record HAS to be criteria formaking the post-season tournaments. It has to.

Posted by salag on 3/5/2011 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Having a winning record HAS to be criteria formaking the post-season tournaments. It has to.

Posted by colonels19 on 3/5/2011 9:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 3/5/2011 7:20:00 AM (view original):
What ratings are your favorites, Colonels(other than yours, any sport)?

And I never would have been in favor of a losing record getting in.

To be honest, I don't really have any, that's why I took up doing my own rankings.  I guess if you pressed me, the RPI is pretty good for basketball, though I know you're just trying to catch me in a "that system rates some losses higher than some wins" argument, so I'm onto your harmless questions, but I'll bite anyways.  If I didn't think my rankings were the BEST way to rank teams in anything, then why would I do it?  Why would you do something just to be second-best at it?  I get that I'm not nationally renowned or anything, but how many are?  There are a lot of people out there that have their heads shoved up their ***** about the way things are, and if things differ from the current setup, then they don't matter, and I don't subscribe to that.

On the other front, my main purpose in rating is to try to figure out who I think, on a neutral court, would beat the other most often, and for that WHO they lost to and how(By how much) is extremely important.  A whole bunch of close losses to elite teams tells me allot more about a team, to my view, than a 25 point blowout over podunk state.


Paranoia much?

No, I just know how you like to get, and like I said, I honestly don't really care for many other rankings, none really come to mind honestly, and that's why I created my own.

I am a point margin guy, use it, it has value, but be reasonable with it.  In my rankings, loss margin penalizes more than win margin bonuses, and I think it amounts to an appropriate ranking.  I get the "score padding" argument of those that are anti-margin, but you can't have a system/follow a system that is easily duped by scrub pounding and score padding...point margin gets a bad rap because for YEARS, HUMAN POLLS were "fooled" by numerous of instances of score padding and "style points" thus the stigma over point margin has formed.  I think the large perception in sports is that point margin can't/isn't handled correctly, and that's just bunk if you ask me.

Lastly, as you know my rankings aren't predictive, so who would/might beat who is irrelevant to me, thus in my mind, the only real proper way to rank teams is based on the HARD GAME RESULTS that have already occurred.