Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 12/28/2009
colonel

if you sincerely want to produce something and get constructive input, I suggest that you start a fresh thread in which you set out

1. the approach you propose to take

2. open questions about which you would like more information from experienced players

3. information - if any - you would need from WIS or other users to produce a sample ranking for some division in some world

This thread has seen some evolution of your concept, some good questions and answers and a lot of unhelpful ad hominem. If the goal is really to produce something of interest and use to an audience, something like that might lead to a constructive path.

Personally, I am a skeptic, but I would be interested in seeing the output. My view remains that rankings are better derived - or mostly derived - from game results rather than from inputs to the game engine - but heck, although I think your scheme would not work, maybe it would be interesting.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
I think you are parsing his statement wrong. He said using .1% of ratings in the NT selection process is too much...how exactly did I parse it wrong....I quoted verbatum what he said, lol. This is your argument, really?

It is easily assumed and the most parsimonious and likely interpretation that he believes or is saying that they don't have any (rightful) place in seeding.

Interpreting it the other way just so you can try to mock it is just being bull headed for the sake of it.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
SAve, for me, using the rankins as the sole arbiter of SOS is an competely fatal flaw. Again, if overall ratings are not sufficient to determine the quality of a team by themselves This is debatable, I say yes if adjusted, you say no...is either wrong?, they are also not adequate to determine the quality of its opponents by itself. Which is again debatable, I say yes, you say no...just because your opinion agrees with the majority, doesn't mean I'm wrong. If its an inadequate rater of a team, its an inadequate rater of a team, whether talking about a team or the teams it plays

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

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

I think you are parsing his statement wrong. He said using .1% of ratings in the NT selection process is too much...how exactly did I parse it wrong....I quoted verbatum what he said, lol. This is your argument, really?

It is easily assumed and the most parsimonious and likely interpretation that he believes or is saying that they don't have any (rightful) place in seeding.

Interpreting it the other way just so you can try to mock it is just being bull headed for the sake of it.

Fancy that, you missed what he was saying. Again.

I clearly stated that ratings have 0 (zero) place in NT seeding. They aren't currently there nor do they belong.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
If I was trying to do that, I wouldn't have provided the means for people to check on it, I woudl have just it out, obviously

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

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

If I was trying to do that, I wouldn't have provided the means for people to check on it, I woudl have just it out, obviously.

Please...you could have linked the page and YOU DIDN'T but because you put the date of your PARSED comment, you're somehow a martyr? Please..

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

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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
But if your system can't handle extreme examples then it is flawed, it has to be able to account for stuff like this.

My system will NEVER see a team of one 910 and nine 10s....so I guess I'm going to have to be content with being flawed then................

You aren't stupid, you know damn well that isn't what the esxample meant, and its rather disengenuous to pretend that it does. It was an extreme example that will 99.999999% likely NEVER HAPPEN but because its your example, its somehow less ridiculous? I've already said I would adjust the overalls to take into account minutes played...you obviously can't grasp that, so what more do you want from me? That example WILL NEVER HAPPEN and if it does, then I file it under the "THEMS THE BREAKS" category....if you don't like it, tough.

Straw man all the way.

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

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

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

I think you are parsing his statement wrong. He said using .1% of ratings in the NT selection process is too much...how exactly did I parse it wrong....I quoted verbatum what he said, lol. This is your argument, really?

It is easily assumed and the most parsimonious and likely interpretation that he believes or is saying that they don't have any (rightful) place in seeding.

Interpreting it the other way just so you can try to mock it is just being bull headed for the sake of it.

Fancy that, you missed what he was saying. Again.

I clearly stated that ratings have 0 (zero) place in NT seeding. They aren't currently there nor do they belong.

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

OK, but the system that many of us have issues w. is the one that bases SOS on overall ratings Right, I was just pointing out that I do both to show that I'm not some ignorant boob that thinks this is the ONLY way rankings could and should be done., which in OR's example would have a win vs. a 6-20, 188 rpi team worth slightly more as a win vs. a 24-2, 2 rpi team.

I just can't get past that. How do you reconcile that? An adjusted overall team rating as I've suggested shows the true quality/talent of a team from an HD engine perspective, thus basing a ranking system that uses that as a SOS is perfectly solid and viable in my eyes. You can't get past it because what I'm suggesting doesn't happen or work in real life thus you've never seen it or really thought about it enough to logically consider its worth.

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

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

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

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

I think you are parsing his statement wrong. He said using .1% of ratings in the NT selection process is too much...how exactly did I parse it wrong....I quoted verbatum what he said, lol. This is your argument, really?

It is easily assumed and the most parsimonious and likely interpretation that he believes or is saying that they don't have any (rightful) place in seeding.

Interpreting it the other way just so you can try to mock it is just being bull headed for the sake of it.

Fancy that, you missed what he was saying. Again.

I clearly stated that ratings have 0 (zero) place in NT seeding. They aren't currently there nor do they belong.

Why not?

And uber-talented team who starts poorly but finishes strong will get a ton of backing in RL, right? Isn't the purpose of seeding to have the best 64 teams in the tourney?

I understand the possibility for overcorrection here, so it would have to be tested and tested and tested again. And the ratings wouldn't help much, but is it really that absurd to include them on some very small level?

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009How talented your team might be should not be part of any consideration for whether you make the NT or not, that is why we play the games, otherwise let's just give the title to someone after recruiting

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

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

SAve, for me, using the rankins as the sole arbiter of SOS is an competely fatal flaw. Again, if overall ratings are not sufficient to determine the quality of a team by themselves This is debatable, I say yes if adjusted, you say no...is either wrong?, they are also not adequate to determine the quality of its opponents by itself. Which is again debatable, I say yes, you say no...just because your opinion agrees with the majority, doesn't mean I'm wrong. If its an inadequate rater of a team, its an inadequate rater of a team, whether talking about a team or the teams it plays

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



Fancy that, you missed what he was saying. Again.

I clearly stated that ratings have 0 (zero) place in NT seeding. They aren't currently there nor do they belong. Yes you did say that, but you have no proof, its an assumption you've made off of a biased company answer.

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

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

OK, but the system that many of us have issues w. is the one that bases SOS on overall ratings Right, I was just pointing out that I do both to show that I'm not some ignorant boob that thinks this is the ONLY way rankings could and should be done., which in OR's example would have a win vs. a 6-20, 188 rpi team worth slightly more as a win vs. a 24-2, 2 rpi team.

I just can't get past that. How do you reconcile that? An adjusted overall team rating as I've suggested shows the true quality/talent of a team from an HD engine perspective, thus basing a ranking system that uses that as a SOS is perfectly solid and viable in my eyes. You can't get past it because what I'm suggesting doesn't happen or work in real life thus you've never seen it or really thought about it enough to logically consider its worth.

Well, no. The reason I can't get past it isn't because it's not used in real life. It's because I can see that it doesn't work here, because there are a lot of examples like the one OR so easily offered up.

Any system that would look at those two teams and say that the win over the 6-20, 188 rpi team is better than the win over the 24-2, 2 rpi team is simply a flawed system in my honest opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009I should redline all your off topic posts. Seriously you aren't helping your arugment by taking shots at people. Stay on topic or don't post