Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 12/21/2009You don't understand HD or HD ratings well (by your own admission). That's pretty simple. If nothing else, your ongoing contention in our 750 vs. 700 example shows how little you understand and how ill-equipped you are to make meaningful judgments and arrive at valid conclusions regarding HD.Other than that, I think you're superbly qualified.And sweetheart, I never contended that you said we should hand the trophy to the team with the highest ratings. That was a tongue-in-cheek response of mine to make a bit of a hyperbolic point, never attributed to you. But we all know that when someone has to resort to a straw man like that, it's a sure sign of desperation. And should you choose to respond to me again, let me re-state this for the 15th time, please read it carefully: "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." So when you continue to respond to me as though we're debating something else entirely (which is pretty much all you've done), you're entirely missing the point. We've got some serious shades of swamphawk going here.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009

The 750 to 700 thing is really a difference of opinion, where your opinion is completely ridiculous and off the wall, if we're strictly talking about core ratings. You simply don't understand the difference between TALENT and PERFORMANCE. If a team underperorms, that's not a TALENT problem, its a PERFORMANCE problem, and if a team with higher ratings can't perform, then tough.

You still never posted your example, you just told me that you had one and that others could back it up...come on man, money to mouth.




Right, I don't understand that difference between talent and performance. Must be it. I'm a simpleton.

The problem is that you are operating under the assumption that raw talent automatically equates to a better team, though that couldn't be further from the truth.

If you want an example, go no further than my Montana (Allen) team. We have back-to-back Elite 8's and have routinely beaten teams with significantly better overall ratings (over the last two seasons, that includes Stanford, UCLA, Texas x2, Maryland, Clemson, Purdue, etc. with several of those occuring in the NT). We finished non-con play each of the last two seasons with the #1 sos and finished the season with a top 10 sos.

But by your thinking, beating a mediocre team with better ratings would've been more impressive than beating Montana, even though we proved time and again on the court that's not the case.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009
What I wrote was, "Heck, why even play the games? Let's just see which team has the highest overall rating, and give them the trophy."

If you would like to continue attempting to misrepresent that as though I attributed that statement to you, go ahead. But it's sort of tough when reality isn't on your side. I don't know what you see it as, but it was a slap at me and indirectly suggesting that I might get to that route/(il)logic somehow. Intent is everything.

As for our actual debate (700 vs. 750). No, I'm not just saying, "it's stupid". I'm saying that what should matter is a team's performance/resume over the course of a 30-game season, not what their overall rating is. But what directly matters when you play an opponent is RATINGS on RATINGS...none of that other BS matters and like I said early, with the variety of schedules you get with 270+ teams, I would hardly call W-L and SOS as accurate guides of how good/bad teams are. I see what you're attempting to do, but perhaps because you have a poor grasp on HD in general, it is extremely misguided. And you're trying to spin this into, he's doing this because he's too dumb to know better...wow, classy guy. I completely understand what I'm doing and what I want to do, and through this discussion I've even come up with a better way to solidify an overall rating, that you'll never own up to because in the end, you think my concept is stupid because you can't get past your own thick-headedness that A. W-L and SOS are EVERYTHING and that B. Overall ratings have at least some ranking value. I can't debate with someone that's afraid to change, and that's basically what you are. I've conceded some of your points, you've conceded none of mine...I think we've all seen where this conversation has headed. You're closed-minded, understand that.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009

What directly matters when you play an opponent is RATINGS on RATINGS...none of that other BS matters

Quote: Originally Posted By cedarking on 12/21/2009
Colonels19, I would like you to post what you think are important core ratings for players. If this is the basis of your system, we should all be able to critique it. I'm all for criticism, that's what makes things better...and I have taken it, but I'm just not going to be down trodden just because people don't agree with me, that isn't going to stifle my position or beliefs in what I do. The core ratings are the player ratings minus WE-ST-DU....that's been said many a time already.

You made the following statement to the question about you not understanding HD or HD ratings well :"Never said that and I won't admit it. I think I know enough to be successful for what I want to do, and that's really good enough for me"

Sounds to me that it is all about you and what you understand whether it is right or wrong, or maybe that there are different ways to play the game and not everything is equal or the same to everyone. I take this to mean that everyone looks at the cores differently and hence they are quantified differently. You want to base a system on how you quantify them. But if all the core values matter, then why is it wrong to look at an overall rating and judge how good/bad a team is based on that? I don't care who looks at what, why and how, the numbers are all there and they all have some value and are basically equal in effectiveness....if they aren't, someone step up to the plate, say so, and weight the categories, because if you don't, then you have an empty argument because you won't simply stand up for what you believe.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009

What directly matters when you play an opponent is RATINGS on RATINGS...none of that other BS matters

No, you're dead wrong. You just don't get it. There are a lot of other very, very important factors that don't matter when you're looking at overall measurable team quality. You can't go ranking teams off of what you think is true, perception, and woulda/coulda/shoulda....facts and reality are what matters. You simply aren't looking at this from a ranking standpoint, so to use a dalter term, YOU'RE DEAD WRONG because you don't understand what you're arguing for or against.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009The standard for "overall measurable team quality" is what a team has done over their 30-game season, not what their overall team rating is.