Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/26/2009Rather too bad you can't look at the non conference schedules, isn't it? Last I checked, the conference tourney champion gets an automatic bid to the NT. You play a decent non-con, but you have to, your conference schedule weighs you down otherwise.

And really, how is your panting obsession with that conference in any way defending your using only ratings for SOS? Quite simple, you started it by challenging me, and I finished it...the end.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/26/2009Huh?

YOu have a problem with going off on tangents. Of course, when you have a position as bad as yours is, I can perfectly understand why you really want to make the conversation about ANYTHING else wherever you possibly can. Before you edited the REWARD POINTS post, you challenged me to research how your conference had depopulated over time....I took you up on it, and the results were incredibly entertaining, so I was just doing what YOU asked and what YOU originally brought up....no tangents there my friend, just pleasing the masses.

I'm taking a break from you for a bit to watch the others pound on you. Because you REALLY REALLY don't want to address the basic issue: Even YOU have said that rating alone is not sufficient to rank teams. Second: You want to use ratings alone for strength of schedule. However, if ratings are not sufficient to declare one team better than another team, even by your own admission, then how can they be good enough to rate them for purposes of determining how strong a schedule IS? Ratings might be able to determine how strong a schedule COULD BE. But then you are taking away from your original stated intent to have completely objective ratings: You are rating teams(For purposes of scheduling) on what they COULD accomplish rather than what they DID and do accomplish. That is absolute and undeniable. A difficulty of schedule is how difficult it is to win the games on your plate . . . INCLUDING the effects of the other team's coach, what offensive systems they run, etcetera. Saying "But if you removed all of those effects then the higher rated team would win!" Is in all ways irrelevant even if it were true, because THOSE EFFECTS ARE/WERE THERE. There is no way you can, with any amount of complaining about other people being closed minded, talking about how revolutionary you are, get rid of that basic and fundamental reality. TO bring up again the race car driver: You are saying it would make no difference in difficulty if a car was driven by a veteran successful driver vs being driven by a highschooler on his first car. And reversing the scenario, as you tried to do, doesn't work: The car is the thing with concrete, measurable quantities, as you call it; you know for a fact what its MPG is, what its maximum obtainable speed is, etcetera, etcetera.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/26/2009A second thing. .in general; I REALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOU OR YOUR SYSTEM. . other than that you seem to presume that everyone else should have the burden of proof when you yourself claim that you are doing something "New that hasn't been tried" That isn't how things work. Its up to YOU to provide proof. Unless you work at East ANglia, then its up to you to manufacture proof. But that is neither here nor there.

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

You conveniently forgot these, yet you wonder why I get frustrated...

I reworked the question to be HD specific....its really a text/video game wide question...not just for one game..........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?

This has nothing to do with ratings advantages and degrees of ratings advantages. Players are the main determinant of wins and losses in HD, yes or no?

The overall team rating tells better of how good the team is as opposed to how well they play...right or wrong?

2 blatant forthright questions and one alluding to a question I posed to you yesterday...why don't you answer one word answer questions?

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/26/2009

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

You conveniently forgot these, yet you wonder why I get frustrated...

I reworked the question to be HD specific....its really a text/video game wide question...not just for one game..........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?

This has nothing to do with ratings advantages and degrees of ratings advantages. Players are the main determinant of wins and losses in HD, yes or no?

The overall team rating tells better of how good the team is as opposed to how well they play...right or wrong?

2 blatant forthright questions and one alluding to a question I posed to you yesterday...why don't you answer one word answer questions?

Ohmygosh, I've never seen anyone with such a hard-on for every minute detail of a 35+ page thread to get answered and re-answered. For the love of God, no one is dodging your questions. You write post after post after post after post and expect that every bit of minutiae is going to get answered and re-answered? Really? There's been a lot of back and forth rehashing I'll admit...but these questions you didn't answer, thus I reposted. You still answered them "your way" of course...

But just because I like you so much (and because I want to see if you're a man of your word and will own up to you "dalter answers and I'll go away" promise), I'll humor you:

1. No idea. What matters is where those ratings are, what their iq's are, etc. Everything being equal, I would expect a 780 team to be better than a 690 team. That said, everything is not equal.

Take a look at my Montana team. Just in the first six games, we've beaten teams that are better than us by 38, 51, 66 and 44 points. And that's just in the first six games! And the one team we lost to had the second-lowest overall rating of any team I've played (with the other having three walk-ons). And like I've always contended, you'll probably always get more out of less than a lot of other users out there because you are a good coach, and the fact that you're defeating some damned good teams out there proves it. I hope you submit these results to be ranked at season's end.

2. See my answer directly above and tell me if you think players are the main determinant. When ratings are within shouting distance of one another, no, I don't think they're the main determinant. If player ratings were the main determinant, it wouldn't be so utterly common for lower-rated teams to beat higher-rated teams. Players are the main determinant because they play. Their A, SPD, LP, PE, BH, P, REB all directly factor into who wins and who loses. Other things like coaching play an important role but are secondary. I'm not necessarily talking about high and low rated teams here, but what largely decides who wins and who loses, and its the players.

3. No, I believe that how well a team has played over the course of a 30-game season tells the story of how good they are rather than their overall team rating. Fair enough....Talent v. Performance is an interesting debate.

Quote: Originally Posted By mandjtesting on 12/26/2009I haven't read this whole post but colonels I think your wrong My wrong what?, just look at my team in wooden D-3, I'm in the 2nd toughest conference (11 human coaches)and by far have the worst overall ratings of any team there and have no SRs. but have 1 of the best RPI's and records, go figure.

3 seasons ago I took over this team under a different user name (forgot to reup in time this season) just to see if I could turn around the 4th worst team in wooden history and I have done it this season.

so I believe that zhawks or any good coach, OR,rails,biilyG and many others can take a low overall rated team and make it successful. player ratings are only a part of this game, the other is coaching esp. against the good teams.

to me this game is boring if you have the best players, I'll take the underdog team, and try to make then succeed in the toughest conferences.

EDIT: if you look there are no star players with great ratings.

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 12/25/2009And right here, again, you show your complete lack of HD knowledge, which does not allow you to accurately discuss what does or does not make a player or team quote "Talented" and sure ratings do matter, somewhat but there is so much more then ratings to HD and if you think that ratings is all there is to it then why are you paying $13/mo for this game?

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 12/26/2009i've never seen a guy who has such a poor understanding of something argue so hard for it. you must think you have a good understanding of math or something, and that somehow gives you the background to weigh on a WIS ranking system. well, it does to some degree, but you also need to understand to a reasonable extent how the game is played. you say that 39% winning record of yours doesn't mean anything but that just shows how far you are from beginning to grasp the subject at hand.