Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009Should. The fact that they don;t a considerable amount of the time. . . . What exactly is a considerable amount of the time, put a percentage on it.

Earlier you said you wanted ratings to be the ONLY component for SOS. Are you changing that? Nope Claiming later on that you didn't say what you actually said is amusing. . .Well I'm not doing that, SOS was always #2 in my ranking process, it goes 1. Win or Loss, 2. Strength of individual opponent, 3. Point margin. Thus the actual game results do matter considerably more because there's going to be a wide gap in points earned if you beat a 600 as opposed to losing to a 600...thus your SOS is only as good as what you do against it....it is after all SECONDARY and has always been since the get go.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009



Here is what you said

Now, if you added a ratings 'component' to SOS which was much smaller than the actual results of games, I could probably live with that. . but not one where a team's 'potential' outweighs what it actually does.

After everything plays out, the ratings component of my SOS pales in comparison to whether the team won or not. Teams W-L records are made up of widely varying schedules and the like and if you can't see how basing an SOS off of that is flawed, given 300+ teams in one division, then you're being closed-minded as per usual. You're basically saying ratings = flawed, w-l records = perfect....not the case....both have strong points and shortcomings but both are viable SOS formats...you're denying that they are...that's funny to me.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009But you are determining the SOS by ratings alone. . which makes that SOS bad. Why? The team rating is made up of the player ratings. I can't believe guys like you can't see the situation from my point of view...you won't even consider my concept....not saying you don't understand it here, I'm saying you don't/won't consider it, which shows your character or lackthereof really. Debate is give and take you know. It seems that YOU are the one not understanding what everyone is saying. If ratings alone don't work for ranking teams, they don't work by themselves for SOS either. Those are 2 completely different concepts that you're trying to make seem like the same thing...an ENTIRE RANKING and an SOS component are eons different...I have done rankings for the last 7 years and I know that....do you? Have you? Your Strength of schedule should be using the same method as your basic ranking system. Why? It needs to be recursive. Why?If you have the strength of schedule informed by something which is inherently different from how you rank teams otherwise. . . Basing SOS off of team ratings made up of concrete player ratings in a game of this nature is just a horrible CONCEPT...right?....

If you schedule a schedule filled with ten 600 sims(Entirely plausible) And someone else schedules a schedule filled with ten 600 human coached teams(Also plausible) Your ranking would count the two schedules exactly the same, when quite plainly they wouldn't be. The Wins and Losses and point margin would bear that out though and correctly order the teams appropriately. The sim doesn't differentiate between a 10-10 sim and a 10-10 human, does it? You're talking about things here that don't even have any relevance in the game and how its ranked currently...that argument is weak and irrelevant.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009Please tell me the point where I said won loss records were perfect? They aren't. But at least they are based on something that HAS HAPPENED as opposed to something you think SHOULD HAPPEN.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009I find it rather hilarious that the person being blatantly closed minded is accusing everyone else of it. I do rankings by both formats, one based off of ratings and one based off of W-L/SOS that I've done for 7+ years with tweaks and backdated rankings under that format as well, so how exactly have I been closed-minded? I've conceded that the overall ratings need to be improved, I've conceded that my ranking method isn't perfect, rather VIABLE, I've conceded points that others have made, in fact if you look on page 29 or 30...lostmyth got me thinking legitimately about whether or not to include FT shooting in an overall rating....go back and read it...its there. If any of the belligerent debaters here have conceded any of my points, show me, because quite frankly, I haven't seen it. You all have just been saying that I'm wrong the whole time simply because you don't agree with me and can't see my logical concept for what it is, logical. There've been a few guys in here that have posted civilly and said, "its not perfect, I don't think its unworkable, but clarify or how would you do X, Y, and Z...and you'd see I responded civilly, honestly, and in a forthright manner to those that had/have questions. The fact that you think I've been closed-minded is hilarious. Not giving up on my concept just because all of you "smart" guys think I should is closed-minded...please....

The same factors that are necessary to differentiate one team from another in rankings are necessary to differentiate one schedule from another schedule. You've never done a ranking so how can you even say this? An entire ranking system and an SOS component are completely different...like I said, I know, I do it, and it works...the proof is in the pudding.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/24/2009You mean you can't actually address the points so you attack the messenger? I'm attacking your gameplay...*** for tat.

Also, I schedule rather difficult non conference schedules.

Third, the conference had several other players who moved on.

Fourth - I actually have gotten to several 16's and an eight, so its not as if I'm just beating up sims, getting to the NT and getting creamed.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/24/2009Also, if I were in it for rewards points, I would have moved to division two a long time ago. By now, with the way they calculate rewards points, I would get more being moderately successful in dII than I am currently getting in dIII. I like developing my players, and I keep wanting to see what the players I recruit turn into.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/24/2009

A basic knowledge of numerical systems and statistics.