Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009
1. I understand exactly what you've said. No you didn't. You think I said crown the team with the highest overall rating at the end of the season champion, and I never said anything remotely close to that, so no you don't understand what I 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. It isn't. The opponents records, SOSs, and RPIs were all accumulated in matchups that had nothing to do with the direct contest that is about to happen between the 2 teams. The best gauge of team talent you have, especially in a game like this is overall rating. If you are a 700 and you see you're facing a 700, you're thinking "ok I've got a good shot here, 50-50...by the same token if you're taking on a 750, you're inherently more likely to lose than not if you're a 700. The vastness of schedules you can get amongst 276 teams is enormous, thus W-L really loses its luster when you look at and really think about it.

3. All of those things are extremely relevant in the context of our debate. No they aren't, no computer ranking system would consider any of that crap if they were going to rank WIS, none...poll around. You have been blindly insisting in our 750 vs. 700 example that ratings should trump everything. Minus WE-ST-DU...I'm suggesting its a viable way and probably the best way to rank teams in a GAME that has CONCRETE rankings. What I'm telling you is that, in actuality, ratings are totally irrelevant. Hilariously incorrect...what do you recruit by then? The only thing that matters at the end of the season is what a given team has accomplished over that season. Agreed, you play to win, period Ratings, good or bad, are irrelevant and not part of the equation. Because you can't see how they'd be useful? That's rather closed-minded, no?

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. Well exampleize then, don't tell me you have an example and that people can vouch for you....splain.

Simply put, you are confusing a team with higher overall ratings as being the BETTER team, and that is not even remotely the case. They are more talented, but how the team is put to use, as you go on to mention here, makes some lower rated teams play a little bit better and makes some higher rated teams play a little bit worse. (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 actually huge components of which teams are actually better and which aren't.) For ranking purposes, all that parenthetical mumbo jumbo is irrelevant. If you produced rankings, you might understand where I'm coming from.

****YOU SAID THIS*****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. You don't, you said that I said make the highest rated team the champion automatically...never said it pal. If I compiled my rankings, you'd be surprised, pleasantly.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/21/2009I'll expand on that. In REAL LIFE, the team with better talent is not necessarily the better team.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/21/2009the game as it is set up allows really bad teams to play with 8-10 sims, get a 27-2 record, and get a #1 or #2 seed, while, really good teams, go 17-10 or even 20-9, and barely get in (most the 17-10 / 20-9 big 6 schools would slaughter the 27-2 type teams that get #1/#2 type seeds) - I have no idea what the fix will look like, hope it work

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/21/2009If strength of schedule is based on ratings, no, they wouldn't.