Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 3/09/2010we went down this path before in threads several weeks ago and despite several volunteers the colonel did not step forward to organize an approach for several of us who offering send the needed data for a test Yes there were several "volunteers" and only one that took action, you. I setup the spreadsheet for you all and you were the only one that participated. Schrode was supposedly working on a program to help pull the data for me and it never happened, I contacted customer support for assistance and nothing happened. You can say what you like, but I really did all I could to make it work. There weren't enough "volunteers" to begin with and as long as WIS keeps this same format intact, its virtually impossible as is. I'd be more than willing to put it together by myself if they had a setup like ESPN fact is, it isn't.....as this thread moves into yet another discussion of the colonel's rating scheme, keep in mind we have all been there before I think you're spinning this into a direction that it was never meant to go. I'm saying the seeding needs help, I know my system would work better (as well as others), I don't see what the big deal is. Again, I've posted my address where?

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/09/2010
He continues to make excuses as to why he can't do it, while continuing to tell us how good it is. Look at my actual rankings, that will show you how good it is.

It doesn't work that way , either do it or get off your high horse colonels.

Quote: Originally Posted By mmt0315 on 3/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 3/09/2010

He continues to make excuses as to why he can't do it, while continuing to tell us how good it is.

It doesn't work that way , either do it or get off your high horse colonels.

And yet each time he starts one of these stupid threads; the same people continue to take the bait and respond to him which only gives him an audience. He's a joke but you all continue to respond. He starts a thread like this twice a week about some "crazy" result or seeding "issues" and his dumb a$$ formula. Just once I'd like to see him start a thread and receive zero replies. If this would happen I assure you he'd stop posting and wasting everybodys time. People that see my genuine concern with/for the game will always post in response to me because they know that I always have the game's best interest in mind. If my formula/rankings are better than WIS, then why shouldn't I suggest it? I love how you guys basically say that I'm not allowed to make suggestions concerning the very things I output...its rather hilarious.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/09/2010
Win margin is a meaningless stat, you've been told that before and it's still true. It has a very small value in my rankings...the loss margin penalizes more than the win margin bonuses. It is an anecdotal stat that only a human can put value on, thus the seeding committee in RL. Any forumula that thinks it can use it successfully is just asking to be gamed. Any formula that suggests losing is sometimes better than winning REGARDLESS OF POINT MARGIN, is just asking to be gamed...

BTW, the RPI formula certianly does factor in who you beat and who you lost to, just not the way you would like it to. There's no special attention paid to who you beat and who you lost to, and that's a problem...its just a big conglomerative formula of win %, opp win %, and opp opp win % all looked at independently and that leaves a lot to be desired...not to mention this is what WIS mainly bases its seeding off of.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/09/2010
If you mean by "special attention" a subjective assessment of any particular game, no. It DOES factor in if you beat a good team or lose to a bad one. No it doesn't, the selection committee accounts for that, but RPI in itself does not. It's a formula, a tool, to be used by the committee subjectively. No formula can mirror the "small test", and I don't think your "wins" formula can come any closer. There is a reason they use it. Because people are used to it...there are formulas/rankings better than the RPI...not just mine.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 3/09/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 3/09/2010
we went down this path before in threads several weeks ago and despite several volunteers the colonel did not step forward to organize an approach for several of us who offering send the needed data for a test Yes there were several "volunteers" and only one that took action, you. I setup the spreadsheet for you all and you were the only one that participated. Schrode was supposedly working on a program to help pull the data for me and it never happened, I contacted customer support for assistance and nothing happened. You can say what you like, but I really did all I could to make it work. There weren't enough "volunteers" to begin with and as long as WIS keeps this same format intact, its virtually impossible as is. I'd be more than willing to put it together by myself if they had a setup like ESPN fact is, it isn't.....as this thread moves into yet another discussion of the colonel's rating scheme, keep in mind we have all been there before I think you're spinning this into a direction that it was never meant to go. I'm saying the seeding needs help, I know my system would work better (as well as others), I don't see what the big deal is. Again, I've posted my address where?

Quote: Originally posted by doomey on 3/10/2010Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.Dude if the RPI didn't figure in quality oppenents it would be garbage and wouldn't be used. If you beat a good team your rpi rises, if you lose to bad one, it drops. Everything else is variants in between. How hard is that? "Special attention paid"... Bah!

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 3/09/2010
accuracy now colonel, you waited, you declined to organize the volunteers, the season ended and player data was erased before folks sent in the template - you waited passively for folks to do things rather than reaching out with sitemails or otherwise to ask them to do what they needed to do - I regret to say that I am to conclude that you are happier asserting that there is a magic elixir than demonstrating - even for one division, one world - that there is a better system metsmax, I will give you this. At that time I was talking about doing the OTR SOS rankings and I admittedly got discouraged when I saw that players transfer, quit the team, etc before the world ends, and I pulled the plug on that ranking system for this game. The fact still remains that you were the only guy to submit ANYTHING, and everyone wasn't as gung-ho as you're suggesting. I'm not even sure how many guys were in on this to begin with 3-6? and I wasn't going to browbeat them until they helped me do my rankings, because that just isn't my style. Rightly or wrongly, I'm normally a do it all myself kinda guy and that's just my nature/personality.

If the format was as I suggested (like the ESPN page(s)) I would do at least one season of rankings for a world, but given the current setup, it isn't really feasible...and that's more truth than it is making an excuse, but take it as you will. The bottom line is and always will be, you're the ONLY person that cooperated.

critique of what exists, pointing toward some better idea and an absence of evidence leaves one with an empty sense of the value of the claims My system isn't the only one that could greatly improve the seeding setup.

but go ahead with the claims and the assertions of readiness to prove the theory - IFFF impossible things happen...... I don't think you realize how much more work it is to go team by team and input the scores, than to view a daily schedule and only have to input each score once....I think that's the big thing you're underestimating, especially given the fact that I'm not making any money off of this. I would love for any of you to step into my shoes and see this topic from my view.

Quote: Originally Posted By tkimble on 3/09/2010Colonels- I know we've had our differences, but I think it is now more a friendly rivalry. That said, I'd like to interject my own opinion on this thread and my newbish opinion on HD.

-You said "I've posted my address where?" and in the very next post you point to your rankings. You can't have it both ways (yes, I know you posted two teams BPI). Again, so I'm allowed to gripe about the current HD seeding format, but I can't use my own BETTER system to suggest a solution/"instead of" concept to make HD BETTER? This is just funny to me. People keep saying that I'm trying to plug my website here, and I never posted the address. If you want to go to the site, you know where to go, as I have designated ranking threads for that...but for y'all to suggest that I can't bring up what I do is preposterous.

-RPI is not the problem. RPI often has the top teams where they should be: at the top. Your example at the beginning of the post was the sub-.500 team getting the #1 seed in the PIT b/c of playing a hard schedule. You were upset because he, as it was later referenced, "gamed" the system. The "gaming" part was brought up by Mr. Polo and I was responding to his comments where I did say that any system could be "gamed". Well, he attempted to "game" the system and failed, which is the point you are missing, I think. The intent of the initial post was to show/suggest how ridiculous HD seeding is. A 12-17 team with a losing record in conference would never be the #1 overall seed in the NIT IRL...that's the point I'm making. He attempted to game the system with a team that was not good enough to do that and his result was a sub .500 season. You can not make the NT in this game with sub-.500 season (CT champion excluded). Is this in the rules or is that a summation of yours? Therefore, his strategy FAILED him, because the goal of everybody's season when it starts out is to make it to the NT, and he did not do it. He is not celebrating that #1 seed in the PIT, I know I wouldn't be. This is irrelevant because it strays from the aforementioned issue at hand. I'd say to myself, "self, why didn't I schedule better?" RPI is not the seeding tool. RPI is the main component of seeding...the FAQ says that so many factors are involved/included/considered, 9 of which are portions of RPI...and to be honest, I don't entirely believe this, I think its fluff to keep HD users off of CS's back. It seems to be RPI with a slight tweak of something. The quality of wins is determined by your record against RPI top 50, RPI top 100, etc. That is built into the seeding process so it seems like you arguing the point of quality of wins is not valid. 12-17, 12 double digit losses, many of those to the good teams that you speak of. This all being said, I also think the seeding needs tweaking, it's just not the RPI that needs the tweak. Example in Tark, where we both play: D3 5 RPI gets 5 seed, 27 RPI gets 4 seed. IMO, there is too much weight on the CT. I'll agree with that.

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 3/10/2010
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Dude if the RPI didn't figure in quality oppenents it would be garbage and wouldn't be used. If you beat a good team your rpi rises, if you lose to bad one, it drops. Everything else is variants in between. How hard is that? "Special attention paid"... Bah!

Quote: Originally Posted By jetwildcat on 3/10/2010

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 3/09/2010Just to add some context, the highest rated below .500 teams in BPI the last two seasons were 2009 Iowa (95th) and currently 2010 Georgia (98th). Both were less than the 5 games under that Washburn was, but if a rating system similar to mine were used, those teams would be 8 seeds in the PI and last ones in at that. FWIW, I added a win bonus to my rankings this year, thus last year it was easier to rank higher with a below .500 record than this year.
i guarantee not a single person read that post, and thought to themself "hey, colonels' system might be pretty good!" guarantee it.

sure, the RPI system needs work, we can discuss how they can be better. save the bpi discussions for the bpi website