Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/24/2009or do both for one division in one world and compare the results?

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

I did an interesting little bit of research re: overall rating:

There are half a dozen sim teams that have better overall ratings than my Montana squad (back-to-back Elite 8's, top 25 til loss last night, top 20 rpi last four seasons, and no, I don't have any walk-ons). There are another 10 or so sim teams that have ratings that are equal or very comparable/slightly worse (within about 10-15 pts).

My friend colonels would have you believe that beating these sim teams would be equally as impressive as beating my team. I'm not having you believe anything, the ratings are what the ratings are.

In addition, I have the 4th best overall team rating in my own division. This despite the fact that I've lost exactly one division game in three seasons (and it's not an easy conference; we were #3 rpi and sent six teams to the NT last season).

colonels, using overall team rating as the only (or even primary) measure of SOS is inherently flawed. There's just no way around it.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/24/2009
yeah, i agree. i didn't mean to give the impression i thought overall rating should mean anything come tournament time, they obviously shouldn't. using them along the way in a largely meaningless ranking system is what i don't have a problem with.

just to be safe, i thought it was obvious/assumed, but i am not agreeing with colonel or his mad schemes in any way. i actually have not read 95% of them, and was only making an effort to respond to some of the intelligent posters

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/24/2009
or do both for one division in one world and compare the results??

We have a winner...that's what I want to do...though I doubt seble would ever forward me the necessary data. I'd still love to do it and I'll be ranking my own squads nonetheless

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

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

I did an interesting little bit of research re: overall rating:

There are half a dozen sim teams that have better overall ratings than my Montana squad (back-to-back Elite 8's, top 25 til loss last night, top 20 rpi last four seasons, and no, I don't have any walk-ons). There are another 10 or so sim teams that have ratings that are equal or very comparable/slightly worse (within about 10-15 pts).

My friend colonels would have you believe that beating these sim teams would be equally as impressive as beating my team. I'm not having you believe anything, the ratings are what the ratings are.

In addition, I have the 4th best overall team rating in my own division. This despite the fact that I've lost exactly one division game in three seasons (and it's not an easy conference; we were #3 rpi and sent six teams to the NT last season).

colonels, using overall team rating as the only (or even primary) measure of SOS is inherently flawed. There's just no way around it.

And you know what this shows? They have the better teams and team talent, but you are the better coach and your better coaching is allowing your worse team to be more successful. You're still beating more talented teams, don't play it off like you aren't. Just because you have a better win-loss record than more talented teams, doesn't mean that your team is better or more talented, it just means your team PERFORMS better than your opponents. You get more out of your lower rated guys than other coaches/sims get out of their higher rated guys...not hard to comprehend really. Wins and losses simply don't matter in an SOS where you're looking at pre-contest team talent in a game where team talent via player ratings is the main determinant to who wins and loses the games. I'm just repeating the same valid points over and over again and all I keep hearing is how my sysstem is "INHERENTLY FLAWED"...ahhh the comedy. I've contended this all along and will continue to, you've never even attempted to consider my reasoning as valid, thus I can't connect with the closed-minded because guys like you are too set in your ways and W-L and SOS are your masters. Step outside the box, my friend.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/24/2009
or do both for one division in one world and compare the results??

We have a winner...that's what I want to do...though I doubt seble would ever forward me the necessary data. I'd still love to do it and I'll be ranking my own squads nonetheless.

what data would be needed other than the game results and the player ratings

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

this comes back to a basic disagreement about what rankings are about Its nice to see someone get that we have differences in principle/philosophy.

if rankings mean how highly rated the players are - or how talented the platers are to be more fair - then the ratings of the players are a good index We're talking SOS here, not the entire ranking system. The player ratings which beget the overall team ratings are used for SOS purposes, I'm not saying to put a 16-11 team #1 in a ranking just because they're the highest overall team rated team in division 1 with an 800 team rating, I'm saying the team that beats that 800 team will earn maximum points for beating the BEST team in division 1, from a team rating standpoint, derived from player ratings that are the main determinant in deciding winners and losers in Hoops Dynasty.

if rankings are intended to address how well the team will perform then coaching, suitability of rankings for the system used and other factors are important Here's an inherent difference of principle here...you like predictive rankings, I like retrodictive rankings. I don't like predictive rankings because you're guessing at what will happen while retros tell you what did happen. I think predictive rankings have uses in this game and in real life, however I think they're more for setting spreads and betting lines. With that said, many of the rankings we see in real life are predictive, including the AP and coaches human polls because they suggest #1 would beat everyone, #2 would beat everyone but #1 and so on. I like to deal in facts and hard numbers so I like retros better and I decided on that a long time ago...my rankings have been completely retrodictive since 2004.

it depends what one thinks it is measuring - and I think a big part of the disagreements on this thread are about what is intended to be measured by the exercise Right, but to call my way of thinking "wrong" just because you don't agree with it is out and out silly, and that's largely what I think I've seen here...there's no intelligent debate, just cats out there saying you're wrong because I'm right....I mean what are we, in kindergarten? And I'm not suggesting you've done that, but there are others here that have.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Ok, I'll put this out to everyone. Let's say you're playing Madden 10 and going into the last week of the season, a team rated a 68 is 7-8 in a weak division while a team that's rated an 82 is 4-11 in a great division. You get to chose who you'd rather play to win one game to get into the playoffs, who do you choose to play, the 7-8, 68 or the 4-11, 82?

In the context of the game/engine, which team is the better team?




That's a terrible example. Just awful.

We're not talking about a team that has achieved a better record vs. really inferior competition. Believe it or not, everyone here is intelligent enough to realize that simply beating up on crap teams doesn't make you good.

In my examples, I'm showing you teams that are putting up better results against equal (or generally better) competition, with lower ratings. That's what you should be attempting to address.

Also, you need to stop sabotaging yourself by saying I'm not closeminded and/or open to new ideas. I've suggested as many or more new ideas as anyone associated with HD, so continuing that stance really undermines your argument.

Finally, I understand your position -- and buddy, you're not a revolutionary, it's really not that far outside the box, we all get it -- but I also have a depth of understanding of HD that you don't possess, and one of the things that depth allows me to do is to recogize a fatal flaw in your thinking that isn't apparent to you.

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

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Ok, I'll put this out to everyone. Let's say you're playing Madden 10 and going into the last week of the season, a team rated a 68 is 7-8 in a weak division while a team that's rated an 82 is 4-11 in a great division. You get to chose who you'd rather play to win one game to get into the playoffs, who do you choose to play, the 7-8, 68 or the 4-11, 82?

In the context of the game/engine, which team is the better team?




That's a terrible example. Just awful. Look at you skirt the question...why not answer it? Teams play tough and easy schedules in HD, why/how is this any different?

We're not talking about a team that has achieved a better record vs. really inferior competition. Sure we are, it sometimes happens...Wins and losses get skewed when you view them out of context Believe it or not, everyone here is intelligent enough to realize that simply beating up on crap teams doesn't make you good. No, but it does increase your win percentage which you think is good and vital in looking at when taking into account SOS....thus W-L doesn't tell the entire story, and perhaps not even as a good a story as the overalls do.

In my examples, I'm showing you teams that are putting up better results against equal (or generally better) competition, with lower ratings. That's a contradicting statement, how/why am I supposed to address something so ridiculous. You said better competition with lower ratings...lol. Lower ratings = worse talent...that's fact....you're still piece-mealing an argument here...still incredibly weak.That's what you should be attempting to address.

Also, you need to stop sabotaging yourself by saying I'm not closeminded and/or open to new ideas. Nope, because you are. I've shown in prior posts how I've been open minded while I've just continually listened to you tell me I'm wrong simply because you don't agree with me....if that isn't closed-mindedness, then what is it? I've suggested as many or more new ideas as anyone associated with HD, so continuing that stance really undermines your argument. That has nothing to do with anything, we're talking about MY rankings based off of an SOS solely based on overall team ratings...you've said time and again that I'm wrong because you don't agree with me...that's not being open minded, buddy.

Finally, I understand your position -- and buddy, you're not a revolutionary, it's really not that far outside the box, we all get it Who else thought of this? Who else has outwardly argued and campaigned for what I have? You know what the answer to both questions is...NOBODY...if it isn't, prove it! -- but I also have a depth of understanding of HD that you don't possess, and one of the things that depth allows me to do is to recogize a fatal flaw in your thinking that isn't apparent to you. I can't take someone who's not willing to consider ideas other than his own, seriously. It is you that has a fatal flaw my friend, you're so immersed in yourself and what you think is right, that you think that nothing else matters because a majority of cats agree with you. I know you're just going to try to throw this back at me and use your childish "NO YOU ARE" closed-minded argument, but the fact of the matter is, I want to do rankings both ways and see both as viable...you want to do them 1 way, using W-L now saying W-L matters differently and you're saying the other way is completely worthless because you don't agree with it. Its plain to see here, you're incredibly closed-minded...its not even up for debate...your posts time and again have concluded that for you.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

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

I did an interesting little bit of research re: overall rating:

There are half a dozen sim teams that have better overall ratings than my Montana squad (back-to-back Elite 8's, top 25 til loss last night, top 20 rpi last four seasons, and no, I don't have any walk-ons). There are another 10 or so sim teams that have ratings that are equal or very comparable/slightly worse (within about 10-15 pts).

My friend colonels would have you believe that beating these sim teams would be equally as impressive as beating my team. I'm not having you believe anything, the ratings are what the ratings are.

In addition, I have the 4th best overall team rating in my own division. This despite the fact that I've lost exactly one division game in three seasons (and it's not an easy conference; we were #3 rpi and sent six teams to the NT last season).

colonels, using overall team rating as the only (or even primary) measure of SOS is inherently flawed. There's just no way around it.

And you know what this shows? They have the better teams and team talent, but you are the better coach and your better coaching is allowing your worse team to be more successful. You're still beating more talented teams, don't play it off like you aren't. Just because you have a better win-loss record than more talented teams, doesn't mean that your team is better or more talented, it just means your team PERFORMS better than your opponents. You get more out of your lower rated guys than other coaches/sims get out of their higher rated guys...not hard to comprehend really. Wins and losses simply don't matter in an SOS where you're looking at pre-contest team talent in a game where team talent via player ratings is the main determinant to who wins and loses the games. I'm just repeating the same valid points over and over again and all I keep hearing is how my sysstem is "INHERENTLY FLAWED"...ahhh the comedy. I've contended this all along and will continue to, you've never even attempted to consider my reasoning as valid, thus I can't connect with the closed-minded because guys like you are too set in your ways and W-L and SOS are your masters. Step outside the box, my friend.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

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

I did an interesting little bit of research re: overall rating:

There are half a dozen sim teams that have better overall ratings than my Montana squad (back-to-back Elite 8's, top 25 til loss last night, top 20 rpi last four seasons, and no, I don't have any walk-ons). There are another 10 or so sim teams that have ratings that are equal or very comparable/slightly worse (within about 10-15 pts).

My friend colonels would have you believe that beating these sim teams would be equally as impressive as beating my team. I'm not having you believe anything, the ratings are what the ratings are.

In addition, I have the 4th best overall team rating in my own division. This despite the fact that I've lost exactly one division game in three seasons (and it's not an easy conference; we were #3 rpi and sent six teams to the NT last season).

colonels, using overall team rating as the only (or even primary) measure of SOS is inherently flawed. There's just no way around it.

And you know what this shows? They have the better teams and team talent, but you are the better coach and your better coaching is allowing your worse team to be more successful. You're still beating more talented teams, don't play it off like you aren't. Just because you have a better win-loss record than more talented teams, doesn't mean that your team is better or more talented, it just means your team PERFORMS better than your opponents. You get more out of your lower rated guys than other coaches/sims get out of their higher rated guys...not hard to comprehend really. Wins and losses simply don't matter in an SOS where you're looking at pre-contest team talent in a game where team talent via player ratings is the main determinant to who wins and loses the games. I'm just repeating the same valid points over and over again and all I keep hearing is how my sysstem is "INHERENTLY FLAWED"...ahhh the comedy. I've contended this all along and will continue to, you've never even attempted to consider my reasoning as valid, thus I can't connect with the closed-minded because guys like you are too set in your ways and W-L and SOS are your masters. Step outside the box, my friend.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

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

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Ok, I'll put this out to everyone. Let's say you're playing Madden 10 and going into the last week of the season, a team rated a 68 is 7-8 in a weak division while a team that's rated an 82 is 4-11 in a great division. You get to chose who you'd rather play to win one game to get into the playoffs, who do you choose to play, the 7-8, 68 or the 4-11, 82?

In the context of the game/engine, which team is the better team?




That's a terrible example. Just awful. Look at you skirt the question...why not answer it? Teams play tough and easy schedules in HD, why/how is this any different?

We're not talking about a team that has achieved a better record vs. really inferior competition. Sure we are, it sometimes happens...Wins and losses get skewed when you view them out of context Believe it or not, everyone here is intelligent enough to realize that simply beating up on crap teams doesn't make you good. No, but it does increase your win percentage which you think is good and vital in looking at when taking into account SOS....thus W-L doesn't tell the entire story, and perhaps not even as a good a story as the overalls do.



No, not skirting the question. Trying to explain to you that you're asking the wrong question that's not relevant to what you and I have been discussing. Another method obviously would take into account SOS, it's hardly just straight W-L. Again, you're creating a straw man.



In my examples, I'm showing you teams that are putting up better results against equal (or generally better) competition, with lower ratings. That's a contradicting statement, how/why am I supposed to address something so ridiculous. You said better competition with lower ratings...lol. Lower ratings = worse talent...that's fact....you're still piece-mealing an argument here...still incredibly weak.



You can't be this obtuse ... you just can't. What I said there was I've been giving you examples where lower-rated teams are putting up better results vs. better competition than other teams that have better ratings. There's no contradiction there, provided you have a firm grasp of the English language.



That's what you should be attempting to address.

Also, you need to stop sabotaging yourself by saying I'm not closeminded and/or open to new ideas. Nope, because you are. I've shown in prior posts how I've been open minded while I've just continually listened to you tell me I'm wrong simply because you don't agree with me....if that isn't closed-mindedness, then what is it? I've suggested as many or more new ideas as anyone associated with HD, so continuing that stance really undermines your argument. That has nothing to do with anything, we're talking about MY rankings based off of an SOS solely based on overall team ratings...you've said time and again that I'm wrong because you don't agree with me...that's not being open minded, buddy.



It's got everything to do with it. If I was only interested in status quo thinking, I wouldn't be consistently trying to come up with ways to help change things in HD. Being open minded does not have to entail endorsing an idea that you can so clearly see a fatal flaw in.



Finally, I understand your position -- and buddy, you're not a revolutionary, it's really not that far outside the box, we all get it Who else thought of this? Who else has outwardly argued and campaigned for what I have? You know what the answer to both questions is...NOBODY...if it isn't, prove it! --



Many, many threads have gone on about changing/enhancing top 25 and/or NT selection/seeding. This is old hat. The only thing different here specifically is you saying that SOS should be purely based on overall team ratings, which is a terrible idea for the reasons that a dozen top coaches have been trying to explain to you for the last 30+ pages.



but I also have a depth of understanding of HD that you don't possess, and one of the things that depth allows me to do is to recogize a fatal flaw in your thinking that isn't apparent to you. I can't take someone who's not willing to consider ideas other than his own, seriously. It is you that has a fatal flaw my friend, you're so immersed in yourself and what you think is right, that you think that nothing else matters because a majority of cats agree with you. I know you're just going to try to throw this back at me and use your childish "NO YOU ARE" closed-minded argument, but the fact of the matter is, I want to do rankings both ways and see both as viable...you want to do them 1 way, using W-L now saying W-L matters differently and you're saying the other way is completely worthless because you don't agree with it. Its plain to see here, you're incredibly closed-minded...its not even up for debate...your posts time and again have concluded that for you.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/24/2009

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

I did an interesting little bit of research re: overall rating:

There are half a dozen sim teams that have better overall ratings than my Montana squad (back-to-back Elite 8's, top 25 til loss last night, top 20 rpi last four seasons, and no, I don't have any walk-ons). There are another 10 or so sim teams that have ratings that are equal or very comparable/slightly worse (within about 10-15 pts).

My friend colonels would have you believe that beating these sim teams would be equally as impressive as beating my team. I'm not having you believe anything, the ratings are what the ratings are.

In addition, I have the 4th best overall team rating in my own division. This despite the fact that I've lost exactly one division game in three seasons (and it's not an easy conference; we were #3 rpi and sent six teams to the NT last season).

colonels, using overall team rating as the only (or even primary) measure of SOS is inherently flawed. There's just no way around it.

And you know what this shows? They have the better teams and team talent, but you are the better coach and your better coaching is allowing your worse team to be more successful. You're still beating more talented teams, don't play it off like you aren't. Just because you have a better win-loss record than more talented teams, doesn't mean that your team is better or more talented, it just means your team PERFORMS better than your opponents. You get more out of your lower rated guys than other coaches/sims get out of their higher rated guys...not hard to comprehend really. Wins and losses simply don't matter in an SOS where you're looking at pre-contest team talent in a game where team talent via player ratings is the main determinant to who wins and loses the games. I'm just repeating the same valid points over and over again and all I keep hearing is how my sysstem is "INHERENTLY FLAWED"...ahhh the comedy. I've contended this all along and will continue to, you've never even attempted to consider my reasoning as valid, thus I can't connect with the closed-minded because guys like you are too set in your ways and W-L and SOS are your masters. Step outside the box, my friend.

Hey Dalter, don't conveniently forget about this one....