Posted by MikeT23 on 10/15/2013 10:39:00 AM (view original):
That discussion was held a few months ago. Truthfully, there are 30-50 teams that matter. Teams that can be at the top or can beat the top. The difference between a Georgia State and a Kentucky is neglible. Sure Kentucky can put up a fight and make a game of it but, if you lose to Kentucky, you're not a legit contender. The same can be said about the bottom teams in the Big Five conferences(ACC, SEC, B10, B12 and PAC12). They're no different than the bottom of CUSA or the MAC. And they're no different than the App States of the world. Yet colonels wants to treat them so. That's why his **** gets skewed.
exactly it all comes back to that. There is no practical difference to a top tier team between the 125th ranked team and the 100th ranked team. The rankings need to account for that or they are total garbage. That is colonels fundamental problem. He wants every game to count and that just isn't the reality of the situation. That is why I have long suggested he just tier teams to a certain point. You know something like 100-125 worth the same, 90-99 worth the same, 82-89 worth the same, 75-81 worth the same, 70-74 worth the same, 67-69 worth the same, 64-66 worth the same, 62-63 worth the same, 60-61 worth the same, and then individualize. Trial and error and utilization of historical records would tell you where the tier divisions should be. Something like that would help his rankings a great deal since a Miami (OH) would be treated the same as say Central Michigan (the 125 and 100 teams in his current poll). Again, I'm just randomly coming up with tier division lines, it may make sense to have less breaks with more teams in them, it may make sense to continue the tiering a bit longer, who knows, but to treat every team as an individual is just silly.