The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
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?

No, isack, I think the purpose is to have the 64 teams that performed best during the season and thus earned their NT bids.
12/28/2009 11:47 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
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.

YOu STILL< quite literally, are not understanding and entirely missing the point by not stepping back and looking at the example. . ..

YOu are stuck on a specific example LONG after I said to forget it and CONSIDER THIS AN ENTIRELY SEPERATE UNCONNECTED ARGUMENT>

12/28/2009 11:48 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
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?

Save he isn't talking about on a small level but making them the SOLE determinant of SOS
I know, but zhawks seems adamantly opposed on all levels.
12/28/2009 11:48 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
Save he isn't talking about on a small level but making them the SOLE determinant of SOS
But zhawks (the guy in question here) is saying that OTRs shouldn't matter AT ALL when it comes to NT selection time. This particular statement has nothing to do with me or my beliefs....this is about zhawks saying it shouldn't matter AT ALL.
12/28/2009 11:49 AM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
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?

No, isack, I think the purpose is to have the 64 teams that performed best during the season and thus earned their NT bids.

But that's not really how they do it.

That's why a 25-5 mid-major often won't get in over an 18-12 major. They look at those teams and say, if this team played that team, which team would win? The answer, for the selection committee, is often the worse performing team, but the better-on-paper team.
12/28/2009 11:50 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009But what it DOES mean is that you, who are pushing the vastly non accepted view, have the burden of proof
Point? You're not going to like it anyway so really wtf do you care? I will put my rankings into practice and that will be my PROOF...I've asked you guys to prove your ridiculous claims and you haven't. You guys have nothing.
12/28/2009 11:52 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Save he isn't talking about on a small level but making them the SOLE determinant of SOS.

But zhawks (the guy in question here) is saying that OTRs shouldn't matter AT ALL when it comes to NT selection time. This particular statement has nothing to do with me or my beliefs....this is about zhawks saying it shouldn't matter AT ALL
Because it doesn't and shouldn't. How well your team plays matters not how many 99 rebounders or ball handlers I have on my team.
12/28/2009 11:56 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009



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. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

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. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.

12/28/2009 11:56 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009

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?

No, isack, I think the purpose is to have the 64 teams that performed best during the season and thus earned their NT bids.

But that's not really how they do it.

That's why a 25-5 mid-major often won't get in over an 18-12 major. They look at those teams and say, if this team played that team, which team would win? The answer, for the selection committee, is often the worse performing team, but the better-on-paper team.

Problem with that and what makes this different is that often in here, the Mid - Major will schedule BIGTIME strong teams in its non conference schedule. Where in real live, many of those teams have a really hard time even getting the time of day from a Duke or North Carolina. Call it the Boise State effect, if you will,.

12/28/2009 11:56 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/28/2009 11:58 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009




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. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

right because talent doesn't matter if you can't win with it. You shouldn't get bonus points towards nt seeding because you have 4 99 rebounders! Or your pg is 100 bh/pa!

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. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.


And yet again here is you telling us we don't understand what you are talking about. I thought you said you weren't calling us stupid?
12/28/2009 11:58 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009




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. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

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. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.




No. We grasp poerfectly the difference between talent and perfpormance, and thing that what teams actually do is more of a determinant of how strong your opponents were than what they are 'capable' of doing.

12/28/2009 11:58 AM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009

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?

No, isack, I think the purpose is to have the 64 teams that performed best during the season and thus earned their NT bids.

But that's not really how they do it.

That's why a 25-5 mid-major often won't get in over an 18-12 major. They look at those teams and say, if this team played that team, which team would win? The answer, for the selection committee, is often the worse performing team, but the better-on-paper team.

No, it's because they look at a lot more than just W/L record. If that 25-5 team had just as strong an SOS, RPI and quality wins, they'd get in over the 18-12 team every time.

But very often, that 25-5 team has beaten up on pretty subpar competition, while the 18-win team has played a very tough schedule, beaten some really legit NT teams, etc.
12/28/2009 11:59 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

YOu STILL< quite literally, are not understanding and entirely missing the point by not stepping back and looking at the example. . ..

YOu are stuck on a specific example LONG after I said to forget it and CONSIDER THIS AN ENTIRELY SEPERATE UNCONNECTED ARGUMENT>

I'll properly chalk this up as the worst backtrack I've ever seen lol...you want to compare apples to oranges and then reneg the entire example because it was preposterous and I completely refuted it...nice...just admit it was ridiculous man, that's all you have to do
Right. For a long time I have been tryign to draw you away from that one specific example to the broader point and you refuse to even renmotely attempt to address it. . why is that? Why do you refuse to actually address the question that IS asked rather than what you WANT the question to be? You work for East ANglia?

12/28/2009 12:00 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009Because it doesn't and shouldn't. Fact is, you still don't know this. How well your team plays matters not how many 99 rebounders or ball handlers I have on my team. and my ranking system uses performance (W-L) way more than Talent (SOS) something you still haven't gripped.
12/28/2009 12:00 PM
◂ Prev 1...66|67|68|69|70...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.