Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
Because the specific example seems to be smokescreening you from the basic point to the degree where you don't even try to address it. As you are not here. You are using his specific example and trying to ridicule it as a dodge to avoid serious discussion.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

If rankings were not used to seed teams in the tournament then go for it, use player ratings. Since rankings are used player ratings have no place in anything, only a teams on court performance should count for NT selection, not how highly their players are rated.

And what you still fail to realize is that in my ENTIRE RANKING SYSTEM that will include the OTR SOS, PERFORMANCE in the form of WINS and LOSSES will trump the OTR SOS....SOS is a secondary concept in my rankings...player ratings will have essentially nothing to do with who gets selected to the NT or not. This proves that you STILL do not understand my concept, ranking system, etc

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Don't even try that, Colonels. You were doing it right f4rom the get go.



12/21/2009 at 5:16 pm
"If you think otherwise, quite frankly, you're insane."



A pretty basic lack of respect to anyone disagreeing with you, rather early on.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Because the specific example seems to be smokescreening you from the basic point to the degree where you don't even try to address it. As you are not here. You are using his specific example and trying to ridicule it as a dodge to avoid serious discussion.

LOFL, arguing against something that doesn't even happen close to 1% of the time isn't "avoiding serious discussion"...fwiw...I've never had an answer to my question....if a team that trots out 12 players at the same position can and have won NTs, made NT appearances, etc...then why make any adjustment

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009At least his grammar (you're) was proper

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009colonel- I have a ? - are u saying team total ratings should determine rankings soley

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

Isack, i simply said colonels has been set off - because that is the truth, he has posted here nearly every ten minutes for the last 4 or 5 days about the subject, which is rather alot - is it not - I called him no names, made no attempt to judge him or the quality of his idea - did I?

I called colonels very knowledgeable, and I have consistently agreed with his notion that ratings have a place in HD rankings, although I would include them in moderation and probably very differently than he may be proposing, which is a little hard to judge, because he is protecting the real life concept which is viewed as proprietary. I actually have my own system, which predicts conference HD outcomes fairly accurately based on player ratings, not team ratings, the world is not short of 'systems'

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Don't even try that, Colonels. You were doing it right f4rom the get go.



12/21/2009 at 5:16 pm
"If you think otherwise, quite frankly, you're insane."



A pretty basic lack of respect to anyone disagreeing with you, rather early on.

What exactly is the context of that quote? The right and wrongs I have purported are much more solid than the things others have said, and I'll give another one to you right now, if you don't think that player ratings are the MAIN DETERMINANT in wins and losses in HD, then you're wrong, insane, pathetic, ridiculous, delusional...etc....that's true...you may not like the way its said, but its true. I'm aware that a lot of people don't like how I've argued here, but with that said, you can't say that I haven't made a good/solid case

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

If rankings were not used to seed teams in the tournament then go for it, use player ratings. Since rankings are used player ratings have no place in anything, only a teams on court performance should count for NT selection, not how highly their players are rated.

And what you still fail to realize is that in my ENTIRE RANKING SYSTEM that will include the OTR SOS, PERFORMANCE in the form of WINS and LOSSES will trump the OTR SOS....SOS is a secondary concept in my rankings...player ratings will have essentially nothing to do with who gets selected to the NT or not. This proves that you STILL do not understand my concept, ranking system, etc

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

If rankings were not used to seed teams in the tournament then go for it, use player ratings. Since rankings are used player ratings have no place in anything, only a teams on court performance should count for NT selection, not how highly their players are rated

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009All Small Forwards did, that isn't saying that they will or all can be good but it is possible. Again you just throw this out as "Doesn't matter" and never directly answer it. Classic Colonels

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

He hasn't given anybody that disagrees with him any respect. This keeps getting better and better...you're making my morning, please keep it up lol.And he has insluted everyones intelligence numerous times early on. uhhh how? I am not saying I have been perfect in my responses but I did not call anyone any names as he has on a number of occasions. If you're offended by being suggestively referred to as a boob, then go sulk in a pillow...like I said in the other thread, a boob is like a cheeky idiot. I called you a puss earlier but have apologized for that long ago. Isack, if you haven't read the entire thread then I don't think you should speak on this subject because colonels is not innocent here. You may not like the way that I've responded, but I've responded belligerently to guys like you because that's what you roll out...you want to come at and slam with me...fine...let's go...just know you're in for the fight of your life and I AM NOT LOSING PERIOD. You chose a battle that you cannot win.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
So why exactly are people not allowed to build on other people's arguments if someone else has alltready made a point they wanted to make? Its weak...if you have to make your points through others without adding anything new...that's weak. Zhawks has used his gang-up mentality quite a bit in this thread...go take a look. Is this some sort of "Marquis of Queensbury' rules where everyone has to independently make every single argument by themselves? I'm not letting someone else speak for me and misconstruing my statements. I think for myself, I don't need to run with the masses to defeat someone's argument...or at least try to.


YOu have several times latched onto posts by other people that you thought supported you, yet you seem to think noone else should have that privlidge. I'm just acknowledging the intelligence of those that have posted civilly and have understood (not necessarily agreed with) my premises...I've never once used a post and said, well isack said this for me so neener neener nee-ner....you guys can't say that you haven't done that...

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

No, I said a teams overall rating doesn't matter, I never said anything about a specific players ratings. Please do stop putting words in my mouth.