Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/27/2009
I have one word to sum up everything you have said here colonels: Flawed.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/27/2009Let me put it this way to you, If I were to come to you and say I have some, not much, but a little knowledge of college football I think I am going to go make a ranking system, that would be foolish as I don't have nearly enough knowledge on the subject to accurately rank anything.

That is what you are trying to do here

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/27/2009
Nobody here ever said that player ratings did not matter at all Fair enough, but there are those that said that player ratings aren't the main determinant in wins and losses in the game, and that's wrong and ridiculous, just that by looking at the ratings and ratings alone you are missing out on more then half of what makes a good team good. I'm willing to add a bonus for having a human coach...that improves it....ratings are still MOST important.

I think you have just proven how closed minded you have been in listening to us throughout this thread. Closed-minded because I slightly mis-stepped and admitted to it...ok...

Wow and nice delete of that post this was in response to colonels, saying how we all said that player ratings meant nothing. Get out of here we are sick of you. I reworked the post because I realized my claim was slightly incorrect.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/27/2009
YOU have went over why YOU THINK MY SOS is flawed time and time again, first the fact that you believe that i am obligated to answer every question you have is quite hilarious I do it for you and you don't return the favor, that's weak and classless...next. You said you can't rank something that you don't know about, I refuted it...your response....*crickets*...so responding to YOUR initial claim is good enough for you, but to expect you to have a retort to my defeat of your claim is QUITE HILARIOUS? You're just weak, that's all. and second, as has been stated time and time again it doesn't matter how many times I say it or how I say it you have been closed minded from the start and won't listen to a word we have said about why your system would not work and now LOFL, considering that there are multiple posts that refute this (me questioning whether or not to include FT shooting because of lostmyth, me adding a human coach bonus because of mandjtesting) you have ZERO legs to stand on with this claim. You think I'm closed-minded because I rightly deemed you closed-minded, and you don't have a more intelligent retort rather than "NO YOU ARE"...again, terrific. before you go around insulting us more calling us closed minded , remember we have agreed that player ratings mean something so what, you've never even considered my concept or given it a chance. You've called me WRONG from the word go. Saying that player ratings mean SOMETHING isn't some kind of ground-breaking admission, because if you'd say otherwise, you'd be an absolute friggin boob. but the weight you are going to give them They're the main determinant in wins and losses in HD, and I'm giving them too much weight...hilarious. along with how you have decided to use them is the flawed reasoning says a guy who doesn't do rankings and has never remotely considered the validity and viability of my concept, not the player ratings themself. I think the word is themselves, and if you had kept up, you'd realize I'm thinking BEYOND player ratings now.

Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/27/2009I have not read 90% of this thread, but I'll try and say what I think zhawks/dalter are saying.


Using ovr rating as a main way to judge a team is a huge no no. You really need to tweak them to make that work. You value 70 per rating center better then a 50 per rating SG, which if you had more experience in the game you'd know isn't correct. A 500 rated team with most of it in pass/def/sb/bh is not on the same level as a 500 rated team with most in ath/speed/reb. With you rating them they would be, but one is above .500 team and the other is under .500.




You would need to adjust it to give more weight towards teams with ath/speed, and less towards def,sb and the areas that mean less in terms of having success. You'd then need to adjust it so that a 90 SB SG is not valued the same as a 90 SB center, or even a 40 SB center in terms of value. If someone is willing to put something like this together, I'm more than happy and willing to take a look at it and strongly consider its inclusion. I personally feel that a step like this is unnecessary for ranking or SOS purposes (I doubt WIS' current inclusion of overalls makes these designations) and I don't scrutinize individual ratings that much as is, thus I'm not really that qualified to do something of this nature and make it to the liking/accuracy of those that have played 1, 2, 300 seasons in this game.





Your little system just won't work in truly judging talent unless you really broke it down, and even then it doesn't factor in how each coach is using those ratings. Just... does... not... work... Disagreed, as is its viable, with tweaks its more viable. I think a lot of people here are confusing SOS and ENTIRE RANKING here, and that's where SOME of the backlash has come from. Thanks for your post.