Posted by cburton23 on 12/12/2011 11:29:00 AM (view original):
Again, I am not saying I belong in the NT, I don't, but there is not a huge difference in these two teams resumes.  When a resume is close what else should be looked at?  If I was 14-14 I could see saying I just got lucky twice, but the resumes are closer than that.

Again, I don't think I should be in the Dance, I am saying I don't think a team I beat twice should be in ahead of me.

I know you're not saying that.  Totally get what you're saying.  When the resumes are close, it should be weight, I agree.

Except if the rest of their body of work is superior.  

They are 4 - 7 vs teams 1 - 64 RPI. . . .you are 2 - 8.  They have no truly ugly losses - you have the one to #228.  There are plenty of arguments, enough that while you can argue, its hardly a travesty.

Posted by arssanguinus on 12/12/2011 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Except if the rest of their body of work is superior.  

They are 4 - 7 vs teams 1 - 64 RPI. . . .you are 2 - 8.  They have no truly ugly losses - you have the one to #228.  There are plenty of arguments, enough that while you can argue, its hardly a travesty.

Agreed. It is about the total resume.

They have 2 wins vs top 50 (41 and 44), I have 0.  Is that really that superior?  I finished higher in the conference so I got a bye, thus giving him an extra win.  The only way his resume is superior is in that he has 2 top 50 wins.  But again I beat him, twice. 

They have proven they CAN beat a tournament caliber team, you have NOT proven you can beat a tournament caliber team. 

I beat the #55 team.  Is that really different from 44?  And haven't I proven I can beat them twice?

In which case, they have beaten twice as many teams in that category as you.  Also, no loss to #228.

Yep twice as many so they beat as many top 50 teams as times I beat them.  Which is better?  I would say actually beating the team would say I am better rather than looking at anything else.

Which is where many, many people are going to differ with you.

Whenever you only and solely look at one factor you won't get anything close to a complete picture.

Your wins against them don't eliminate two of their wins.  It doesn't work that way.

And their top 50 wins don't eliminate mine against them.  Many are acting as if their resume is vastly superior to mine and my wins must be a fluke.  When in fact our resumes are pretty comparable, albeit, their slightly better due to top 50 wins, but if two teams are pretty close in paper resume looking on the court seems to make sense.

Without the fact that two of your wins were against them, they would not only be ahead of you, but significantly ahead of you.  With those two wins, you are almost tied. twice as many top fifty wins, and no ugly loss to #228.  You keep seeming to want to leave out that loss, but it counts.

I don't want to leave it out, I want it to matter that I beat them twice.  Isn't that the best way to determine who is the best team?

No.  The best team is the team that would win the most times if played in a round robin against the same teams in the same places.  The team, that if you picked a random slate of opponents, would have the highest win percentage against that slate of opponents, regardless of their performance against any particular one of them.

Plenty of situations out there where team A beat team B, which beat team C. . . which beat team A.  Who is best?

 

But thats not this situation