Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009. .but if those ratings are inadequate to differentiate two teams from eachother Simple answer here...they aren't inadequate, how are they adequate to differentiate two schedules from eachother

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

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
. .but if those ratings are inadequate to differentiate two teams from eachother Simple answer here...they aren't inadequate, how are they adequate to differentiate two schedules from eachother?

Then you DIDN'T say that using the overall rating to rank teams woudl be inadequate? YOU YOURSELF said this.

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 12/28/2009
lets talk about how to reflect IQ in a "talent rating" scheme

cant use IQ in all offenses and defenses - given that a team wont use most of them. IF one did use ALL offenses and defenses it would bias the results toward (a) teams that over invested in IQ by learning two offenses or (b) teams that run combo defense, etc I would just use the O and D IQ of what the team runs most often.

I suppose one would need to include as a factor IQs in the actual offense/defenses used in the game. Probably need to apply the same minute weighting approach that one selects to weight attribute ratings for players. A bench guy with A+ IQ for 8 minutes doesnt have the same effect as a 27 minute starter - same as with skills. Right, but that's why at season's end you work out the adjusted OTR by including, dividing it up by how many minutes played each of the individual players played in.

What if a team is in the process of switching from one system to another, starts the season running the old offense but puts all the practice into the new offense - should the ranking pay any attention to that change and rank the team's CURRENT ability or look to its typical ability over the course of the season? (An example of this problem is a team that starts with say four guys with A rankings in man defense and eight guys with F's....meanwhile the team works on its press and by game 20 has 12 guys at B- and then starts running the press. Any special adjustment? or just look at each game as a separate data point? That'd be a tough situation. Ideally I would just like to use the IQ of the main offenses and defenses run, but if they switched mid-season, than an adjustment is justified. FWIW, these OTR changes would be have to be made by WIS...for me to attempt to do it by myself for all those teams is practically impossible...I'd like to see a lot changed, but its really not feasible for me to do so rather than for only my team. If the class of the HD coaches came up with some way to incorporate these adjustments into a WIS adjusted OTR, I wouldn't argue against it, if its applied properly.

Weight recent games more heavily? I don't like that at all.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
You all realize that player ratings make up team ratings and are the main determinant of winners and losers in this game, right?

Colonels, if this assertion is correct, then how do you explain OR's example. UNC w. the slightly better overall rating, yet they are a terrible team and Rutgers is a national title contender. If ratings really drove the process that much, this wouldn't be possible (and it's downright common to beat teams that are 30/40/50 points better than you). I think you have overemphasized how much ratings determine success vs. other factors.

Just because a team underperforms doesn't mean that they aren't talented and aren't good.

Yes, if a team like UNC goes 6-20 w. a 188 rpi, it does mean they aren't very good, and that beating them is not very impressive.

The only thing that's concrete here are the player ratings, so why not use them...they're the deciding factors of performance.

Concrete? Yes. A good indication of how strong the team is? Absolutely not. So that's why I wouldn't want to use them. I don't think you can look at the two teams in OR's example and still say that ratings are the deciding factors of performance.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009By continuing to tell us we can not grasp what you are talking about and that is why we don't agree is calling us stupid

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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
By continuing to tell us we can not grasp what you are talking about and that is why we don't agree is calling us stupid.

Calling you stupid is calling you stupid, suggesting you still don't understand something isn't calling you stupid...part of it is closed-mindedness...funny that you would rather argue the miniutae of phrase meanings than argue the topics at hand....you're such a hypocrite..

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
Z is right, there have been more times than I can remember in this thread that you've suggested everyone else is too slow to understand what you're talking about. But the reality is that your proposal does not contain any high-level thinking that would be difficult for anyone to understand, the concept is incredibly basic.

So please stop insulting everyone every chance you get it. We get it. It's not advanced or difficult to understand. The thread will be much better (and you'll have a better chance of getting your message across) if you stop insulting everyone.



You guys (zhawks, dalter, arssintheb) have all at one time or another suggested that my rankings would do things that they wouldn't do and were never meant to do...zhawks talking about ratings mattering for NT selection, dalter talking about how Talent would outweigh Performance v. Talent...NOT TRUE....arssintheb same things along those lines. You guys have multiple times confused an SOS as compared to an ENTIRE RANKING SYSTEM, you guys have suggested that my rankings were just meant to order the highest rated teams top to bottom, etc...what have you given me that leads me to believe that you truly understand my concept...you saying you understand me because you want me to shut up....really? Actions speak louder than words my friends and I'm not sure any of you 3 understand what my rankings are meant to do, and your questions and summations have proven it, despite my attempts to further explain my situation/concept.