The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 5:38 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
And since the purpose of a ranking system is to find the BEST teams and not the 'most talented' . . . .


And Colonels? The proof is in the pudding. I'll let you figure out what that means.
12/21/2009 5:40 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 5:41 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/21/2009
And since the purpose of a ranking system is to find the BEST teams and not the 'most talented' . . . . I disagree...the way I do rankings are retrodictively and thusly, my rankings are meant to determine who did the best against their schedule, thus I rank teams by BEST SEASON, because the BEST TEAM argument is never-ending and arbitrary. The stronger schedule you play, the more potential you have to be ranked higher, pending you win and do well against said schedule. Having a ranking based on who would beat who, predictive style, is really rather worthless....my question is, who cares? I want to know what happened, not guess what's going to.


And Colonels? The proof is in the pudding. I'll let you figure out what that means.
12/21/2009 5:43 PM
jdno
Posts: 655 (0)
Hall of Famer
152
Rookie
Well I'm sure there's a way to run a script or something that can do the nasty download work for you in Excel or C+ or whatever. That's not my cup of tea, though.

You don't have to post your methodology for any of us. I'm sure all most coaches care about is better accuracy (and maybe fairness).

But to think Fox will ever spend money on something not in-house for this game is faulty logic.
12/21/2009 5:44 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
I am not doing any favors for WIS...you give to get, period. I am more than willing to show what I've got though, if I can obtain the data.
12/21/2009 5:45 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 5:46 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Colonels, I think it's hilarious that you'd rather have the end-all, be-all be decided by overall team rating, rather than a team's accomplishments/resume over a 30-game season.

What matters is what a team has done over the course of a season.

Heck, why even play the games? Let's just see which team has the highest overall rating, and give them the trophy. No need to think about things like which ratings are actually important, iq's, coaching acumen, which ratings might be good/bad for particular off/def sets, a team's growth during the season, injuries and any number of other things.

You think beating a 750-rated team with a 13-15 record, 150 rpi and mediocre SOS is a better win than beating a 700-rated team with a 22-6 record, 15 rpi and a strong SOS. By your own admission in this thread, you simply don't know HD particularly well. A chasm exists between our ways of thinking that is so incredibly vast, I see no reasonable way to bridge it.

As such, you and I really have nothing further to discuss.
12/21/2009 5:47 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 5:48 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 12/21/2009Colonels, I think it's hilarious that you'd rather have the end-all, be-all be decided by overall team rating, rather than a team's accomplishments/resume over a 30-game season. What matters is what a team has done over the course of a season. Heck, why even play the games? Let's just see which team has the highest overall rating, and give them the trophy. No need to think about things like which ratings are actually important, iq's, coaching acumen, which ratings might be good/bad for particular off/def sets, a team's growth during the season, injuries and any number of other things.You think beating a 750-rated team with a 13-15 record and 150 rpi is a better win than beating a 700-rated team with a 22-6 record and a 15 rpi. Therefore, a chasm exists between our ways of thinking that is so incredibly vast, I see no reasonable way to bridge it. As such, you and I really have nothing further to discuss.

Good point there. FOrgot to mention and add in IQ's. And which offense or defense is being used, which alters importance of ratings again.

12/21/2009 5:48 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 5:49 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009
Colonels, I think it's hilarious that you'd rather have the end-all, be-all be decided by overall team rating, rather than a team's accomplishments/resume over a 30-game season. This proves that you have no idea what I've said over the last 4 pages. I do have a ranking system that wouldn't include the ratings at all too, so you could always hold your breath for that.

What matters is what a team has done over the course of a season. Completely agreed.

Heck, why even play the games? Let's just see which team has the highest overall rating, and give them the trophy. Never remotely suggested this No need to think about things like which ratings are actually important, iq's Irrelevant for ranking purposes, coaching acumen Irrelevant, which ratings might be good/bad for particular off/def sets Irrelevant, that's for the coach to worry about, a team's growth during the season Accounted for, injuries and any number of other things irrelevant, **** happens, if you happen to beat a great team when their top guy(s) are injured, lucky you.

You think beating a 750-rated team with a 13-15 record, 150 rpi and mediocre SOS is a better win than beating a 700-rated team with a 22-6 record, 15 rpi and a strong SOS. Therefore, a chasm exists between our ways of thinking that is so incredibly vast, I see no reasonable way to bridge it. I doubt that's likely to happen to begin with...I'd like to see an example if you have one. Let's say this is a minus WE-ST-DU overall rating...I'd be much happier beating the 750 regardless of record, I would have beaten the more talented, BETTER team that underperformed for reasons that frankly don't matter.

As such, you and I really have nothing further to discuss. Your loss because you don't understand my argument and never did...just made it into something that you didn't like...a shame really.

12/21/2009 5:53 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
Actually, I do have one more chime in. I'll just get a team full of 750 rated centers, and let it be ranked really high by you because its 'talented' - and lose really badly. After all> Where the rankings are just doesn't matter.


12/21/2009 5:58 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/21/2009Actually, I do have one more chime in. I'll just get a team full of 750 rated centers, and let it be ranked really high by you because its 'talented' - and lose really badly. After all> Where the rankings are just doesn't matter.


Well then you're just an idiot, and more power to those that get to play you. The things you are suggesting are extreme and people would never do them. I really think you'd be surprised at what my different rankings spit out...that's up to seble though.
12/21/2009 6:02 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
1. I understand exactly what you've said. I am addressing the central debate that you and I have been having, which is your contention that beating a 750-rated team with a mediocre record/rpi/sos is better than beating a 700-rated team with a strong record/rpi/sos. That is what I'm responding to, period.

2. How can you agree with my statement "what matters is what a team has done over the course of a season", and then offer up your feelings on 750 vs. 700? That would seem to be quite contradictory.

3. All of those things are extremely relevant in the context of our debate. You have been blindly insisting in our 750 vs. 700 example that ratings should trump everything. What I'm telling you is that, in actuality, ratings are totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters at the end of the season is what a given team has accomplished over that season. Ratings, good or bad, are irrelevant and not part of the equation.

4. Not only does it happen, but it happens quite frequently. I can give you my Montana team as a good example. Anyone who knows DI can confirm.

Simply put, you are confusing a team with higher overall ratings as being the BETTER team, and that is not even remotely the case. (And that is where all those other things I mentioned -- iq, coaching, types of ratings, types of sets that favor each ratings, etc. -- that you termed irrelevant are in fact huge components of which teams are actually better and which aren't.)

And that's exactly why a team with higher ratings isn't necessarily a better team, and why your entire premise is fallacious.

5. The notion that I don't understand your argument is both moronic and insulting.
12/21/2009 6:07 PM
◂ Prev 1...15|16|17|18|19...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.