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

Quote: Originally posted by arssanguinus on 12/21/2009 Except in this case you are utterly ignoring a major chunk of what differentiates teams.

Stop using logic, that isn't allowed in this thread


Talk about not addressing prior posts, all of this was hashed and rehashed and you already missed it and my posts and what have you. Way to call me out on that fact and then gloss over my statements...that's not hypocritical or anything.

Here's my ranking thought process, if you can't concretely measure it, then it doesn't matter/belong....you can disagree with that all you like, but understand that its a matter of principle. If the team has a higher core rating than its opponent, the higher team SHOULD win...its certainly initially in better position to do so...better players equal better chances.

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

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. VVVV

you have negatively impacted it.

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

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

YOu aren't alone. Hearing some of the logic here makes my brain feel like its melting out of my ear. . .

Especially COlonels.

Lets just say his ranking system would have had an abysmal time with several of my Brandeis seasons and having any predictive value to who would be liable to have beaten who..

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

Quote: Originally Posted By aporter on 12/22/2009
I'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?

I can answer for him. The 750 team

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009
Very ignorant response. Again, coaches play so much more of a role then you even begin to give them credit for a good coach and that is all immeasurable conjecture that has no place in a ranking system...I'm sure the current Top 25 ranking setup includes coach quality....idiot........can have a poor recruiting class and still be one of the top teams, whereas in your crap it isn't possible.

Also you did yet to acknowledge the fact that if one school has a poor class it ripples through not only their conference but the rest of the world, hurting numerous numerous teams of no fault of their own. Like I said, thems the breaks, **** happens, everything isn't going to go your way.

Get a grip, you don't understand HD. This isn't about understanding HD per se, this is about using the ratings within the game to create a good, solid ranking system.

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

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.

Really? No way, you said it time and time again? I wouldn't have noticed had you not said it again

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

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

Very ignorant response. Again, coaches play so much more of a role then you even begin to give them credit for a good coach and that is all immeasurable conjecture that has no place in a ranking system...I'm sure the current Top 25 ranking setup includes coach quality....idiot........can have a poor recruiting class and still be one of the top teams, whereas in your crap it isn't possible.

Also you did yet to acknowledge the fact that if one school has a poor class it ripples through not only their conference but the rest of the world, hurting numerous numerous teams of no fault of their own. Like I said, thems the breaks, **** happens, everything isn't going to go your way.

Get a grip, you don't understand HD. This isn't about understanding HD per se, this is about using the ratings within the game to create a good, solid ranking system.

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

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

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.

Really? No way, you said it time and time again? I wouldn't have noticed had you not said it again!

That's all you've got? Really?...puss. Dig at me for every last thing that I say, but when the shoe's on the other foot....*crickets*.......classy.....

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

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?

Not anywhere close, again you obviously do not understand HD at all. Get back to me once you have a .500 career winning percent

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009And if you think it is impossible for a 780 ranked team to lose well more then half of their games, then well you haven't played enough HD... Oh we already knew that

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009Yeah cuz clearly Coach K and Roy Williams and Bill Self... Yeah nobody thinks of them when they make the ratings, yah no way. How ignorant can I be? Duke and UNC don't get added bias from pollster. Duh how stupid of me! This isn't real life, boob. Prove to me that coach quality is included in the top 25, and I'll move along. You're failing to at least acknowledge that I said IF YOU CAN'T CONCRETELY MEASURE IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER FROM A RANKING STANDPOINT...talk about pounding your head against the wall talking to idiots....

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

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

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?

Not anywhere close, again you obviously do not understand HD at all. Get back to me once you have a .500 career winning percent.

My win percentage has nothing to do with the context of this argument first of all, so thank you for getting off track. Secondly, if you don't think eliminating WE-ST-DU gives you a stronger, more credible overall ranking, then you're flat wrong and delusional...you're all over the place trying to argue **** that isn't being argued here. The question in this very post isn't whether or not ranking off of overalls is good or not, its if you eliminate WE-ST-DU, do you have a better overall rating or not. Try to keep up man, you're losing bad

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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009
Yeah cuz clearly Coach K and Roy Williams and Bill Self... Yeah nobody thinks of them when they make the ratings, yah no way. How ignorant can I be? Duke and UNC don't get added bias from pollster. Duh how stupid of me! This isn't real life, boob. Prove to me that coach quality is included in the top 25, and I'll move along. You're failing to at least acknowledge that I said IF YOU CAN'T CONCRETELY MEASURE IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER FROM A RANKING STANDPOINT...talk about pounding your head against the wall talking to idiots....

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009Classiest thing you have said yet. Return to your own website where maybe you have some credibility

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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009
Classiest thing you have said yet. Return to your own website where maybe you have some credibility.

I called you out because you replied to nothing...the only thing you addressed in that post was that I said something time and again...lofl...really ...really? Any objective person would see that you're ducking me and my responses and getting all defensive when the name calling starts. You're just another peon that thinks he can hang with me and doesn't have a clue that he's not even close