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

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

You said a 780 could win 0 games and a 690 could lose 0 games...UTTERLY AND LAUGHABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You first denied and later admitted that an overall rating would be more sound/credible if you eliminated WE-ST-DU, which has been my contention today....nice job.

And please know, just because you, the Almighty, disagrees with me or my logic, doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong....it just means you're closed-minded and that you don't care about or listen to any opinions that aren't your own.

Just like dalter, I'm sure your gf or bf is Stoked about that about you.

We do disagree with your logic, because it is faulty as we have pointed out its flaws. Just like those did in the other thread of your college football ranking system. The difference is there you listened to them, here you won't listen to us.

How exactly is my logic faulty? I say if you can't measure it it doesn't matter...why? Because I don't want to get into some conjecturous, subjective BS that every person has a different opinion about....I deal in facts and wouldn't do that any other way. My logic is faulty because I want to deal in truth and facts....wow...really?

And FWIW, I explained away that Miami-FL, Virginia Tech thing too...you may not like or agree with it, but I stood on logic and defended my case. My CFB rankings are rated in the top 25 out of 120 systems on Massey ratings, having dabbled in the top 10 a few weeks. I think my rankings are solid and sound, and the RESULTS back that up. I will always own up to and admit when I'm wrong, but when we have a difference of principle and thought, I'm not going to concede anything, because you're just trying to tell me that I'm wrong simply because you don't agree with my concept....CLOSED-MINDED!

If I thought I was wrong, being ridiculous, had a worthless concept, etc....I would have shut up by now, and people on these boards that know me, know that.

If you can't respect the fact that I stood toe to toe with you, answered every last one of your questions honestly, thoroughly, and whole-heartedly (regardless of whether you liked my answer or not), and didn't back down at any time where I was questioned, then you're not worth my time. I may have called you a puss here (because you skirted my questions/points) but I've been a ton more accountable, available, and forthright than you have here...and that's a fact...my posts PROVE IT.

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

You said a 780 could win 0 games and a 690 could lose 0 games...UTTERLY AND LAUGHABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You first denied and later admitted that an overall rating would be more sound/credible if you eliminated WE-ST-DU, which has been my contention today....nice job.

And please know, just because you, the Almighty, disagrees with me or my logic, doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong....it just means you're closed-minded and that you don't care about or listen to any opinions that aren't your own.

Just like dalter, I'm sure your gf or bf is Stoked about that about you.

We do disagree with your logic, because it is faulty as we have pointed out its flaws. Just like those did in the other thread of your college football ranking system. The difference is there you listened to them, here you won't listen to us.

How exactly is my logic faulty? I say if you can't measure it it doesn't matter...why? Because I don't want to get into some conjecturous, subjective BS that every person has a different opinion about....I deal in facts and wouldn't do that any other way. My logic is faulty because I want to deal in truth and facts....wow...really?

And FWIW, I explained away that Miami-FL, Virginia Tech thing too...you may not like or agree with it, but I stood on logic and defended my case. My CFB rankings are rated in the top 25 out of 120 systems on Massey ratings, having dabbled in the top 10 a few weeks. I think my rankings are solid and sound, and the RESULTS back that up. I will always own up to and admit when I'm wrong, but when we have a difference of principle and thought, I'm not going to concede anything, because you're just trying to tell me that I'm wrong simply because you don't agree with my concept....CLOSED-MINDED!

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/06/2009

I think the main problems are/were that SOS was/is superceding W-L to a certain extent which a few of you touched on and that something that I never wanted to happen, is happening...bad teams getting credit for just scheduling/showing up to play a good team.

I honestly thought this system was going to work great for this year but obviously because of the results, that is simply not the case. Not entirely sure what I'm going to run with right now, but looking to possibly add a win bonus and find a way to appropriately rank/score losses.

Yup I totally agree. You proved that you were right, by changing your 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 12/22/2009

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

You said a 780 could win 0 games and a 690 could lose 0 games...UTTERLY AND LAUGHABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You first denied and later admitted that an overall rating would be more sound/credible if you eliminated WE-ST-DU, which has been my contention today....nice job.

And please know, just because you, the Almighty, disagrees with me or my logic, doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong....it just means you're closed-minded and that you don't care about or listen to any opinions that aren't your own.

Just like dalter, I'm sure your gf or bf is Stoked about that about you.

We do disagree with your logic, because it is faulty as we have pointed out its flaws. Just like those did in the other thread of your college football ranking system. The difference is there you listened to them, here you won't listen to us.

How exactly is my logic faulty? I say if you can't measure it it doesn't matter...why? Because I don't want to get into some conjecturous, subjective BS that every person has a different opinion about....I deal in facts and wouldn't do that any other way. My logic is faulty because I want to deal in truth and facts....wow...really?

And FWIW, I explained away that Miami-FL, Virginia Tech thing too...you may not like or agree with it, but I stood on logic and defended my case. My CFB rankings are rated in the top 25 out of 120 systems on Massey ratings, having dabbled in the top 10 a few weeks. I think my rankings are solid and sound, and the RESULTS back that up. I will always own up to and admit when I'm wrong, but when we have a difference of principle and thought, I'm not going to concede anything, because you're just trying to tell me that I'm wrong simply because you don't agree with my concept....CLOSED-MINDED!

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 10/06/2009

I think the main problems are/were that SOS was/is superceding W-L to a certain extent which a few of you touched on and that something that I never wanted to happen, is happening...bad teams getting credit for just scheduling/showing up to play a good team.

I honestly thought this system was going to work great for this year but obviously because of the results, that is simply not the case. Not entirely sure what I'm going to run with right now, but looking to possibly add a win bonus and find a way to appropriately rank/score losses.

Yup I totally agree. You proved that you were right, by changing your system?

I admitted that I was wrong more than once in that thread, and what I also said in that thread was that if someone had Miami-FL ranked ahead of Virginia Tech at that time of my first ranking (which I did have in my first rankings) that it is logical and still can be argued for, even though Virginia Tech beat Miami-FL, because Miami's entire body of work to that point was arguably stronger. My point was that H2H matchups don't negate ENTIRE schedules and SOSs, and I'll never back down from that. There were glaring errors elsewhere, I had a 2-3 over a 5-0 and that was more of a reason to make a change than Miami-FL over VT, though that situation had some input. There are a lot of people out there at that time that said Virginia Tech beat Miami-FL, therefore Virginia Tech should be ranked higher than Miami-FL because of that one game (when 4 or 5 games were played at the time) and if you look at the crux of that thought process, its really illogical and closed-minded because folks were calling 20% of the schedule the entire schedule essentially.

colonels, you have a lot of gaps in logic, but the primary one (at least as far as the issue that you and I were debating) is this:

You are viewing team rating as the end-all, be-all of how good a team is (and thus how high quality a win it would be if you beat them). But the reality is that a lot of other important factors effect how good a team is.

Beating a 700-rated team with high iq's coached by OR is a more impressive/difficult win than a 750-rated team with mediocre iq's and a mediocre coach.

Your failure to acknowledge/understand this fact is at the core of the problem here. You can not simply look at the first, OR-coached team with a 24-5 record and 15 rpi and ignore all of that, and continue to claim that beating that second team with a 14-15 record and 140 rpi is a more impressive win. It is not.

there are in the forums a host of threads that have discussed the relative significance of different ratings

there is a very good discussion of the different ratings in the new coaches handbook

it is clear to anyone who has played this game much that total ratings are a weak indicator of current team strength

1. total ratings includes WE, STA and DUR which have no gameplay effects (so long as you have enough depth)

2. total ratings ncludes ratings like LP and PE which affect game play only for certain players

3. other ratings are clearly NOT of equal effect on game play - saying that they all matter and therefore they are equal is simply false logic

4. Hoops IQ is a vital aspect of team strength and of course is not part of the players' numerical ratings

5. different ratings matter to different degrees in different schemes - for example DEF matters more in MTM and ATH matters more in certain other defenses

6. if one had no other data should one guess that a 750 avg team is probably better than a 650 avg team - sure, if one wants to guess

7. might one rely on total ratings as key focus in recruiting - sure, if one wants to lose a lot

8. might one rely on total ratings as basis for team strength in some rankings methodology - sure if one wants to be wrong

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

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. VVVVV

you have negatively impacted it.

Point prove

helping to reveal your foolishness and general ignorance toward HD has been helpful to some I'm sure.

CAn't measure? A win or loss is a binary number, the easiest thing to measure in existance.

\

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

You said a 780 could win 0 games and a 690 could lose 0 games...UTTERLY AND LAUGHABLY IMPOSSIBLE.

You first denied and later admitted that an overall rating would be more sound/credible if you eliminated WE-ST-DU, which has been my contention today....nice job.

And please know, just because you, the Almighty, disagrees with me or my logic, doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong....it just means you're closed-minded and that you don't care about or listen to any opinions that aren't your own.

Just like dalter, I'm sure your gf or bf is Stoked about that about you.

1st, yes it actually is possible and that is one of the cool things about WIS (as much as some of us might also hate it). Having never played d1 I don't know how you think you can say that.

Would never happened, has never happened...the burden of proof is on you...you want to make bizarre claims that would never be true, I'm going to call you on your ****...PROVE IT

I am sorry COlonels, but YOU are the one coming up with a new system which everyone else disagrees with> YOu have the burden of proof, and the fact that youw ill not fulfill it. . .

there are only 10 possible answers

Quote: Originally posted by metsmax on 12/22/2009there are only 10 possible answers

damn straight

Quote: Originally posted by metsmax on 12/22/2009there are in the forums a host of threads that have discussed the relative significance of different ratingsthere is a very good discussion of the different ratings in the new coaches handbookit is clear to anyone who has played this game much that total ratings are a weak indicator of current team strength1. total ratings includes WE, STA and DUR which have no gameplay effects (so long as you have enough depth)2. total ratings ncludes ratings like LP and PE which affect game play only for certain players3.  other ratings are clearly NOT of equal effect on game play - saying that they all matter and therefore they are equal is simply false logic4. Hoops IQ is a vital aspect of team strength and of course is not part of the players' numerical ratings5. different ratings matter to different degrees in different schemes - for example DEF matters more in MTM and ATH matters more in certain other defenses6.  if one had no other data should one guess that a 750 avg team is probably better than a 650 avg team - sure, if one wants to guess7.  might one rely on total ratings as key focus in recruiting - sure, if one wants to lose a lot8.  might one rely on total ratings as basis for team strength in some rankings methodology - sure if one wants to be wrong 

You forgot to add in one where the 650 team's bench is weaker but starters are much better than the 750s team's bench. The 650 team's sstarters have better stamina so they can play 5-10 more minutes a game against the weak less talented bech of hte 750 team. In that time they gain a lead that they are able to maintain against the starters.

Stop bringing logic into this thread tanner!!! Can you not see it has no place!?! lol

clone77 already has the perfect ranking/seeding system, but he's not sharing it with us mortals.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/22/2009
colonels, you have a lot of gaps in logic, but the primary one (at least as far as the issue that you and I were debating) is this:

You are viewing team rating as the end-all, be-all of how good a team is (and thus how high quality a win it would be if you beat them). But the reality is that a lot of other important factors effect how good a team is.

Beating a 700-rated team with high iq's coached by OR is a more impressive/difficult win than a 750-rated team with mediocre iq's and a mediocre coach.

Your failure to acknowledge/understand this fact is at the core of the problem here. You can not simply look at the first, OR-coached team with a 24-5 record and 15 rpi and ignore all of that, and continue to claim that beating that second team with a 14-15 record and 140 rpi is a more impressive win. It is not.

I do admit that the overall rating needs to be solidified and by doing so, basing a ranking off of team overall ratings would be off the charts better off as well. I unfortunately really don't have this answer, less not including WE-ST-DU. If someone could find ways to weight it towards starters or what have you, or find a way to work in IQ, I think that would be great, hell I might toy around with it myself, an idea actually just popped in my head. However like I've said prior, I think that basing a ranking system off of the current overall team ratings would still give you a solid, viable ranking system...and its hard to say that it wouldn't, given that you haven't seen any rankings based on it. I think the concept, if it can be perfected, is the best way to rank teams in this game and I don't spew ****...I really believe that. I will work on an adjusted overall rating, that I promise.

We have butted heads, but you guys have gotten me thinking and I do appreciate that, thank you.