Posted by llamanunts on 5/22/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Well, okay. Let's start here: my contention is not that losses are better than wins. However, Team A winning by 3 against the #300 RPI, while Team B loses by 3 against the #6 RPI, is not evidence that Team A is better than Team B, or deserves more credit.
I mean, if you get bunch of your buddies together and lose by 3 to the Spurs, it's a good bet that you're a better team than me and my fat buddies who beat the local CYO squad by 3 in OT. (This never happened, I swear. Totally.)
Fine, again my rankings aren't meant to determine better/best teams, they're meant to determine best season.
We have differences in ranking philosophy here, my rankings aren't predictive, and really in HD, why the hell would you want a ranking system to determine "who the best team is" when you can see that in black and white through the player and team ratings at everyone's disposal?
Scheduling a weaker/lower ranked team is low risk, low reward...you'll probably win, you won't earn many "points" because of it. Now if you lose, that loss is catastrophic and would hurt greatly.
Scheduling a stronger/higher ranked team is a higher risk, with a higher reward, but if you lose, the penalty isn't as great.
If you played the top 10 teams on the road and lost to them all on the road by 1 point...you're still 0-10...you may have played well, but you didn't win/succeed. A few wins would quickly turn a campaign like that around, but when your record says you're 0-10, you're 0-10. You'd be a lot more screwed if you were 0-10 against the 10 lowest ranked teams, and again that is factored in accordingly.
5/22/2013 7:25 PM (edited)