Quote: Originally posted by xulapaul on 12/21/2009For what it's worth, I don't see how anyone can disagree with the notion that HD player scores are an objective determination of player strength. This is unlike real life, where there are other important factors that are very difficult to quantify (psychological factors, for example).

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

Quote: Originally Posted By vandydave on 12/21/2009
you are delusional.

You've offered nothing to this thread

Quote: Originally posted by mtngoats on 12/21/2009what is going on here...totally lost....

Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 12/22/2009I'll admit I skipped the last 4 pages. I do have a question for colonel as I would like to know which team has the better talent, a 750 team that goes 16-10 (50 SOS) with 12 scholarship players that only goes 10 deep each game or a 700 rated team with 2 walk-on players that goes 20-6 (40 SOS)? If you beat both teams, which win would carry more weight in your rankings

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/21/2009
Wait seriously? This is seriously what you were pushing? Replacing SOS with the teams overall average. Wow it is stupider then I thought. How does that even make sense? a 0-26 780 ranked team would benefit me more to play then a 30-0 690 ranked team? Wait...you're seriously using those extremely impossible examples? Show me when that's ever happened because that would NEVER HAPPEN. That's maybe the most ridiculous thing posted in this thread, less billabercrom's statement that player strength doesn't beget team strength lol. The win over the 780 is still better...when looking at core ratings of course, minus WE-ST-DU as I've said time and time again.

Mr. colonels19, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Look at your above comments and suggestions...hilariously extremely impossible, but that's your argument...really? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. You don't think its a good idea, that's a difference of opinion. A ranking of this nature would be sound, you guys are just so engrossed in W-L and SOS that you'd NEVER EVEN CONSIDER the fact, and virtually none of you have. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Yep, I'm going to hell for this one. And as I've said prior, I don't care if anyone agrees with me, I believe this is a good concept and I believe the rankings by this format would bear that out. The 5 or so people that have chimed in against me here don't have me in tears and haven't broken my spirits one bit. The overall rating needs to be tweaked to get it as close to perfect as possible, and once that's done, you're in business. As is, its still probably a pretty good gauge.

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

Quote: Originally posted by cedarking on 12/21/2009
But what you fail to realize is that not all core ratings are equal, so a 750 rated team may not be a better team than a 700 rated team. And I am not meaning st-du, I am meaning reb, sp, lp, per.

But once you negate st-du-we then it will all work out

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/22/2009

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

Wait seriously? This is seriously what you were pushing? Replacing SOS with the teams overall average. Wow it is stupider then I thought. How does that even make sense? a 0-26 780 ranked team would benefit me more to play then a 30-0 690 ranked team? Wait...you're seriously using those extremely impossible examples? Show me when that's ever happened because that would NEVER HAPPEN. That's maybe the most ridiculous thing posted in this thread, less billabercrom's statement that player strength doesn't beget team strength lol. The win over the 780 is still better...when looking at core ratings of course, minus WE-ST-DU as I've said time and time again.

Mr. colonels19, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. Look at your above comments and suggestions...hilariously extremely impossible, but that's your argument...really? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. You don't think its a good idea, that's a difference of opinion. A ranking of this nature would be sound, you guys are just so engrossed in W-L and SOS that you'd NEVER EVEN CONSIDER the fact, and virtually none of you have. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Yep, I'm going to hell for this one. And as I've said prior, I don't care if anyone agrees with me, I believe this is a good concept and I believe the rankings by this format would bear that out. The 5 or so people that have chimed in against me here don't have me in tears and haven't broken my spirits one bit. The overall rating needs to be tweaked to get it as close to perfect as possible, and once that's done, you're in business. As is, its still probably a pretty good gauge.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/22/2009

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

Quote: Originally posted by cedarking on 12/21/2009

But what you fail to realize is that not all core ratings are equal, so a 750 rated team may not be a better team than a 700 rated team. And I am not meaning st-du, I am meaning reb, sp, lp, per.

But once you negate st-du-we then it will all work out!

That would help solidify the overall rating, would it not?