Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009
And when you play the team in question, are you playing them with or without the coach? Coaches aren't rated and don't play. They matter just as much as offense/defense run, etc, but those factors are secondary to the main determinant, player/team ratings. If you are playing them with then whatever the talent is is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. All that matters for how difficult a schedule is is how good a TEAM is, which includes the talent AND the efforts of the coach. But that will bear out in the W-L based off of the team overall rating SOS. If you lose 20 games against the #1 schedule in any format, you're going to be way down the totem pole. NTHe job of a team is to win or lose games right, and if one team consistently wins games against higher "Rated' opponents this is a new wrinkle you and dalter are just now adding...changing your argument mid-debate...nice, then it IS indeed a better team then them. Better/best teams don't always win, that's my justification. Chaminade beat Ralph Sampson's Virginia...was Chaminade better than Virginia? Not even close. Because it is doing the job of a team which is to win, not to 'Be talented' Its obvious that the goal of teams is to win, but their strength is more clearly seen through the team ratings than through W-L records that are attained off of various different schedules amongst 300+ team divisions.

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




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. Yes you're skirting the question, you simply are taking the 5th here, because you don't want to tell me what the right answer is/what I want to hear...that's incredibly weak. And of course its relevant, substitute the words Madden 10 with HD and the ratings and win loss to a 690 that's 16-10 or a 780 that's 9-17...if you have to win one game to make the NT...who would you rather play? The records say that the 690 is better than the 780...so let's play the 780 right? Answer the question and if you don't, we'll continue to see your lack of character and integrity when you're continually stumped and silent...

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. Watch this dalter, this is what actual human beings with character do...I admittedly mis-read your post and I was wrong and I'm sorry in this case. I didn't realize that you were saying lower ratings for the teams that were winning the games, not the opponents.

It's got everything to do with it. You suggesting other things for the game has nothing to do with my proposed overall team rating SOS argument...NOTHING. 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. This doesn't matter, you can be innovative and closed-minded and that's what you're being...you're continually saying/suggesting that I'm wrong just because you don't agree with me...that's closed-mindedness...I don't know how to more clearly put it for you. Being open minded does not have to entail endorsing an idea that you can so clearly see a fatal flaw in. I'm not asking for your support, endorsement, recommendation, etc...you're painting my SOS system as quite possibly the worst system ever, and that's just not the case. If you can't see how my system is logical, beneficial, and innovative...then you're being closed-minded, and that's all you've done the whole time...poopoo the idea without giving it a second thought because you don't agree with it....you're a weak man, dalter.

Many, many threads have gone on about changing/enhancing top 25 and/or NT selection/seeding. But never ANYWHERE has anyone ever suggested what I'm suggesting, so no THIS ISN'T THE SAME THING, THIS ISN'T OLD HAT...this is new and sexy, and your closed-mindedness won't even allow you to believe that I'm presenting an ENTIRELY NEW IDEA...that's just hilarious. 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 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING ANYONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED BEFORE, and the ranking system itself would be different from what you've seen as well to boot. a terrible idea for the reasons that a dozen top coaches have been trying to explain to you for the last 30+ pages. CM, what you fail to realize out there is that there are people out there that agree with YOU, but understand what I'm doing and think its a novel concept, given my thought process and how I rank teams. You haven't...what does that say about you CM?Verbally picking you apart is growing tiresome.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/24/2009We've danced this exact dance before, but I'll be happy to explain it again, slowly
YOU ARE TAKING TEAM RATINGS AS THE ABSOLUTE MEASURE OF WHICH TEAM IS BETTER. TEAM RATINGS ARE NOT AN ABSOLUTE MEASURE OF WHICH TEAM IS BETTER, BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACTORS OUTSIDE OF TEAM RATINGS (NOT TO MENTION SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT FACTORS WITHIN THE RATINGS THEMSELVES.) Team ratings are the overwhelming majorital reason as to why teams win and lose games...player ratings are the MAIN determinant in who wins and who loses, are they not? Yes all those other things matter, but team ratings, begotten from player ratings that are the main determinant in who wins and loses, matter MOST, so if you're going to use any SOLE factor to base SOS on, I LOGICALLY chose the right one....no? Please understand that I would like to tweak the overalls as well, I think this gets lost/forgotten whenever you reply to me...seriously.

Once again, you think that a win over a 620-rated, low iq team w. a mediocre coach is more impressive than a 600-rated, high iq team coached by OR. Ideally, I'd like to factor IQ into an overall team rating. By your logic, you'd rather face a 780 with a worse record than a 690 because they have a worse record...who's logic is more sound or quite simply, who has logic and who doesn't? You've suggested that W-L is more important than overall team rating, so don't start back tracking now.

That is so patently absurd, I can scarcely respond to it. For the 750th time, you've never remotely considered the concept, so this is just a way for you to weasel out of legitimate arguments. You can't hang with me and deep down, you know it.

Attempting to determine team strength using just basic ratings rather than actual performance is ... wait for it ... flawed. We all understand that but you. Well, your performance angle says beating a 690 that's 16-10 is better than beating a 780 that's 9-17...what exactly does that say about you and your concepts? You want to sit and grandstand and stand on a mountain top and ACT like you're infallable, and I'm just picking you apart.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/25/2009
Take a fast race car. Put a professional race car driver at the wheel of it. Take an identical car and put you at the wheel. The cars have equal capability or 'talent' - would you consider beating the pro more impressive than beating you?

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/25/2009

this exchange is the crux of the gap

"

"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."

If one assumes that strength means better ratings then one gets to one conclusion - colonel's

If one assumes that strength means overall ability of a team to succeed in this game - taking into account coaching, offense played, defense played, suitability of ratings for those schemes, use of players in depth chart and the like, then colonel's proposal does not measure strength.

My personal view is that colonels is assuming his conclusion and my personal view is that strength does not mean better ratings - I think the productive meaning of strength is the second one above.

BUT, if you define strength as colonel does, he is of course right. On the other hand it is not contradictory or ridiculous to disagree with reasoning that in essence is:

"ratings equal strength, therefore lets use ratings to measure strength" - if the first step in the logic is wrong, then so does what folllows

it is like

good weather depends on the outdoor temperature, therefore lets measure temperature to determine how good the weather is.....others might say that wind chill, precipitation, sunshine and other variables matter - but it all depends on what "good" means

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/25/2009your SOS format is illogical because overall rankings are a terrible measure of the quality of a team.

do you disagree that overall rankings are a terrible measure of the quality of a team

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/25/2009
If you're just looking to measure talent rather than how good the team is -- they are most certainly NOT the same thing, not even close -- then overall ratings might be a half-decent measure. Not a great measure, not a good one, but maybe half-decent. Are player ratings the MOST DETERMINANT facet of the game or not?

So even if you simply want to measure talent, you wouldn't be doing a particularly good job of that. You're basically saying ratings are secondary...you realize this, right?

But what needs to be measured is how good the team is, and overall rating does a terrible job of that. If ratings aren't number one in judging team talent and how good a team is, than what is pray tell?

You have basically the current top coach in HD posting directly above me telling you it is a terrible measure. Would you step back and think for a minute that perhaps your lack of knowledge/understanding of HD is causing you to think it is a good measure, when it really isn't? I've conceded points, agreed with you guys from time to time, and you all have admittedly made me think...have you? Not even close CM.

Because you have people like coachbilly, zhawks, lostmyth, myself, etc. all trying to tell you that it's not. And the reason we know it's not is because we have the benefit of a lot of HD knowledge. That means nothing to me....nobody agrees with you isn't a good enough (hell GOOD argument period) argument to tell/get me to stop. If you guys think that player ratings aren't the MOST DETERMINANT aspect of the game, then you're all delusional and wrong...plain and simple.

You need to think about that. Take your own advice, pal.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/25/2009
That's the funniest thing I've read yet. You piggy-backed billyg's argument to shy away from the tough questions I asked and legit points I made, and you're trying to paint it differently...please...

Not only that, I've had the same message for you the entire time, which, incredibly, is the same message coachbilly had: Team rating is not a good measure of team quality. But you can't own up to what you said prior in the posts of yours that I addressed. I'll address all of your posts but you won't do the same for me...I have no respect for you...that's weak and I hope everyone sees it for what it is.

Also, if you think I'm duty bound to respond to every single one of the scores and scores of posts you have in this thread, that's utterly moronic. 99% of everything has gone back-and-forth ad nauseum already, it's all been responded to. There's new stuff to be addressed, but because you've run out of answers, you refuse to answer and address...I see how your game works now....the p-word is in hand, but I'll refrain. And people wonder why I get frustrated.

That said, if you think there's a particular point(s) that hasn't been responded to in these 30+ pages of verbal diarrhea, let me know and I'll take a look. This page man...made 3 or 4 responses to you...with previously unasked questions....ANSWER EM...its that simple. You just don't want to lose and you know I have you beat, period.

Really, stop embarrassing yourself. If people put my tone aside and see this argument for what its really been, they'd see that you're the one looking ridiculous here...put your skirt down.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/25/2009

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




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. Yes you're skirting the question, you simply are taking the 5th here, because you don't want to tell me what the right answer is/what I want to hear...that's incredibly weak. And of course its relevant, substitute the words Madden 10 with HD and the ratings and win loss to a 690 that's 16-10 or a 780 that's 9-17...if you have to win one game to make the NT...who would you rather play? The records say that the 690 is better than the 780...so let's play the 780 right? Answer the question and if you don't, we'll continue to see your lack of character and integrity when you're continually stumped and silent...

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. Watch this dalter, this is what actual human beings with character do...I admittedly mis-read your post and I was wrong and I'm sorry in this case. I didn't realize that you were saying lower ratings for the teams that were winning the games, not the opponents.

It's got everything to do with it. You suggesting other things for the game has nothing to do with my proposed overall team rating SOS argument...NOTHING. 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. This doesn't matter, you can be innovative and closed-minded and that's what you're being...you're continually saying/suggesting that I'm wrong just because you don't agree with me...that's closed-mindedness...I don't know how to more clearly put it for you. Being open minded does not have to entail endorsing an idea that you can so clearly see a fatal flaw in. I'm not asking for your support, endorsement, recommendation, etc...you're painting my SOS system as quite possibly the worst system ever, and that's just not the case. If you can't see how my system is logical, beneficial, and innovative...then you're being closed-minded, and that's all you've done the whole time...poopoo the idea without giving it a second thought because you don't agree with it....you're a weak man, dalter.

Many, many threads have gone on about changing/enhancing top 25 and/or NT selection/seeding. But never ANYWHERE has anyone ever suggested what I'm suggesting, so no THIS ISN'T THE SAME THING, THIS ISN'T OLD HAT...this is new and sexy, and your closed-mindedness won't even allow you to believe that I'm presenting an ENTIRELY NEW IDEA...that's just hilarious. 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 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING ANYONE HAS EVER SUGGESTED BEFORE, and the ranking system itself would be different from what you've seen as well to boot. a terrible idea for the reasons that a dozen top coaches have been trying to explain to you for the last 30+ pages. CM, what you fail to realize out there is that there are people out there that agree with YOU, but understand what I'm doing and think its a novel concept, given my thought process and how I rank teams. You haven't...what does that say about you CM?Verbally picking you apart is growing tiresome.

If only you had the remotest grasp on reality to know how this "argument" is playing out....