6/4/2013 7:50 PM
Billyg could pull the info you need for you.
6/4/2013 8:16 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 6/4/2013 7:28:00 PM (view original):
And again, I will admit, the biggest shortcoming of my system is that it DOESN'T tell who the best team is.  There are a lot of good, predictive systems out there whose rankings basically say that #1 would beat all teams, #2 would beat all teams except #1 and so on, and you would certainly want to take them to Vegas with you...Sagarin, the Andrade rankings I publish, WIS' power rankings I guess.

I honestly think you have the right of what a system should do. Just a lot easier said than done. I've played the amateur bracketologist the last couple of years, and there's really no one I agree with. The main computer rankings all have obvious flaws, and the selection committee seems to change their criteria every year. I have no idea how MTSU got in this year--the amount of credit they got for losing by 20 to Florida was completely baffling to me. 
6/5/2013 12:07 AM
In the Massey College Basketball Ranking Comparison, the conglomeration of the 61 ranking systems rated Middle Tennessee #39...I had them #40...

http://www.masseyratings.com/cb/arch/compare2013-19.htm

6/5/2013 12:32 AM

You had New Mexico #1?  Seriously?

6/5/2013 12:40 AM
New Mexico beat a whole lot of good teams. As opposed to MTSU, who beat a whole lot of bad teams and one solid team. 
6/5/2013 1:11 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/5/2013 12:32:00 AM (view original):

You had New Mexico #1?  Seriously?

I was a bit surprised too, but the results bore it out...that was pre-Harvard mind you.
6/5/2013 1:45 PM (edited)
I'm going to hop in here since I think this is a very worthwhile discussion topic...

But first I'd like to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is basically scientific backing to Socrates' "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." mantra.

Basically, the smarter you are, the smarter you perceive everyone else compared to you; the dumber you are, the smarter you perceive yourself to everyone else. The poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence, etc. So before we claim we're smarter than everyone else, consider that there's probably a lot that goes on beyond what we're aware of when it comes to how "other" seeding systems are implemented. [Or, at least that's what more intelligent people are likely to do]

At the same time, I'm not saying that existing utilized systems are the "best" systems. I'm a firm believer that additional knowledge does not necessarily point you towards to best answer. If you asked a random person which city has more people, Detroit or El Paso, they'll probably say Detroit. If you asked a geography enthusiast which city has more people, Detroit or El Paso, he might say El Paso since southern cities like that are growing and Detroit has been falling apart for years. Well, the answer is Detroit. (This is the argument I use to get casual sports fans to play in company Fantasy Sports leagues, btw).

Anyway, on the topic of the purpose of the ranking system...I find there's a lot of confusion between the two notions:
1. The purpose of a championship is to reward the best team (i.e. the purpose of playing the games is to find out who's the best)
2. The purpose of a championship is to give something to play for (i.e. the purpose of building a great team is to increase the chances of winning games)

I will fight to the grave that #2 is the way it should be looked at, primarily due to the lack of certainty in games. Moneyball/sabremetric afficionados will probably agree with me. This is why I agree with Colonels' stance that the idea of a ranking system is to see whom has had the "best season" not to see who is the "best team". However, I think that over an infinite number of games with perfectly balances schedules and no variance, the best team should always end up #1. Testing this, of course is impossible.

So we're back to how picking seeds (in a world not concerned with how "entertaining" the tournament is) would then ideally be based on a system that at least maintains that it behooves all teams to do their best in every game...you can't ask any more of the system because you can't prove that any system does more than that. Basically, I feel the whole quality-of-ranking-system debate is really just for entertainment as you can never guarantee the "best" team has had the "best" season by any stretch.

On top of that, my pet peeve in all of this is when a team is supposedly reseeded when a major player gets hurt, as it flies right in the face of my Option #2 above.
6/6/2013 9:43 AM
it says mlatsko posted?
6/6/2013 2:32 PM
LIEZ.
6/6/2013 10:47 PM (edited)
Posted by jetwildcat on 6/5/2013 1:45:00 PM (view original):
I'm going to hop in here since I think this is a very worthwhile discussion topic...

But first I'd like to bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is basically scientific backing to Socrates' "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing." mantra.

Basically, the smarter you are, the smarter you perceive everyone else compared to you; the dumber you are, the smarter you perceive yourself to everyone else. The poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence, etc. So before we claim we're smarter than everyone else, consider that there's probably a lot that goes on beyond what we're aware of when it comes to how "other" seeding systems are implemented. [Or, at least that's what more intelligent people are likely to do]

At the same time, I'm not saying that existing utilized systems are the "best" systems. I'm a firm believer that additional knowledge does not necessarily point you towards to best answer. If you asked a random person which city has more people, Detroit or El Paso, they'll probably say Detroit. If you asked a geography enthusiast which city has more people, Detroit or El Paso, he might say El Paso since southern cities like that are growing and Detroit has been falling apart for years. Well, the answer is Detroit. (This is the argument I use to get casual sports fans to play in company Fantasy Sports leagues, btw).

Anyway, on the topic of the purpose of the ranking system...I find there's a lot of confusion between the two notions:
1. The purpose of a championship is to reward the best team (i.e. the purpose of playing the games is to find out who's the best)
2. The purpose of a championship is to give something to play for (i.e. the purpose of building a great team is to increase the chances of winning games)

I will fight to the grave that #2 is the way it should be looked at, primarily due to the lack of certainty in games. Moneyball/sabremetric afficionados will probably agree with me. This is why I agree with Colonels' stance that the idea of a ranking system is to see whom has had the "best season" not to see who is the "best team". However, I think that over an infinite number of games with perfectly balances schedules and no variance, the best team should always end up #1. Testing this, of course is impossible.

So we're back to how picking seeds (in a world not concerned with how "entertaining" the tournament is) would then ideally be based on a system that at least maintains that it behooves all teams to do their best in every game...you can't ask any more of the system because you can't prove that any system does more than that. Basically, I feel the whole quality-of-ranking-system debate is really just for entertainment as you can never guarantee the "best" team has had the "best" season by any stretch.

On top of that, my pet peeve in all of this is when a team is supposedly reseeded when a major player gets hurt, as it flies right in the face of my Option #2 above.
So wait, based off the Dunning-Kruger effect, does that mean that people who are here comparing how smart they are, are really not smart?  They seem smart to me (so does that mean that I'm smart).  I am soooo confused.  Who's smart and who's not?  Or since this is just a basketball simulation, does it even matter?  And why are the things in space called asteroids and the things in a person's *** called hemorrhoids?  When it comes to stewed prunes, are four too many?  Are three not enough?  Questions that demand answers. 
6/7/2013 1:27 PM
Clearly, you're a genius 
6/7/2013 3:24 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 6/7/2013 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Clearly, you're a genius 
Smartest thing anyone has said in this entire thread.  Most truthful too. 
6/20/2013 7:53 PM
Ok, so typically nobody posts the other side of this issue, but I'm going to.  Right now my Rochester team is #8 on the Projection Report.  I still feel the same way that I did when I made this thread - in order to be in the top 10 or so, you should have to demonstrate the ability to beat top opposition.  I'm 1-3 against the RPI top 25, only 2-1 against 26-50.  1-3 against the top 25 just doesn't scream "top 10" team at me.

Don't get me wrong, I am EXTREMELY proud of the coaching and, particularly, scheduling I did this season.  If you look at the team, it should be a borderline tournament team.  I'm likely getting no worse than a 3-seed.  Who knows, maybe that's good enough that I'll actually pull off a tournament victory if I don't get too bad a draw.  It's really a minor miracle of luck and, I hope, a little coaching that this team is anywhere NEAR where they are (certainly not an impressive recruiting performance, though; talent-wise Rochester has been in the crapper for years).  Anyway, back to the point, do other people NOT feel that I'm being massively overseeded?
6/20/2013 8:23 PM
On talent? Sure, you're overseeded. But I don't see anything wrong with getting rewarded for good coaching. 
6/20/2013 8:27 PM
by the metrics we use to judge these things 23-4 with 2 RPI and 3 SOS seem like legit numbers for a 3 seed... 
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.