"I guess just to note, kind of a ranking/me thing I guess...I don't use the term "margin of victory" because my system factors both the margin of victory and margin of loss, so I say point margin, because both are taken into account...I mean you can schedule the top 10 teams, but if you're getting blown the eff out by 60 a game, that's a lot different than losing each of those by 1 point"

Gotcha, That makes more sense now.  Thanks.  Appreciate the time and effort.  No matter they say about you, you're not a dousche.  LOL

The 3 factors I listed are the only 3 I use.  I hate to keep pulling stuff/definitions from my website, but I think this is the best way to say it, and then I'll elaborate a little...

A good dictionary definition would be: a summary of each team's overall results to date, analyzed on an individual game basis.

So each game carries equal weight, they're each 1/27th of a schedule, or in your case here 1/19th of a schedule, so there's no need to view/compute wins v. top 50, wins v. top 100, a conglomerated SOS, last 10 games, etc., because all of it's already been accounted for, thus a breakdown/analysis of/in that manner would just be uselessly redundant.

Posted by terps21234 on 5/31/2013 11:37:00 PM (view original):
"I guess just to note, kind of a ranking/me thing I guess...I don't use the term "margin of victory" because my system factors both the margin of victory and margin of loss, so I say point margin, because both are taken into account...I mean you can schedule the top 10 teams, but if you're getting blown the eff out by 60 a game, that's a lot different than losing each of those by 1 point"

Gotcha, That makes more sense now.  Thanks.  Appreciate the time and effort.  No matter they say about you, you're not a dousche.  LOL

YW man...I'm happy to do it...I like to see what my rankings spit out in comparison to the projy report, especially since they aren't as "close" as I thought they once were.

I've made no bones about saying that I think my system is the best around, but I guess if you want to look at it in/from lay terms...my system seems to value winning a bit more than in the PR, though not in an abusive manner.  I guess another little secret about my system is that loss margin hurts more than win margin helps, so if you beat the bottom 10 teams by 100 points each, that isn't going to vault them into a top 25 or tournament position even...IRL I created this to undermine teams "running up the score" (especially in CFB), even though my rankings aren't even close to being in the national conscience.  There's been a lot of trial and error along the way.

I think people are inherently a bit "scared" of point margin and its usage because it seems to have been misused/misapplied for too long, that the national public can't put faith into it...that's just my 2 cents though I presume.

People are definitely way too distrustful of point margin. Running up the score may not necessarily go with being a great team, but being in a position to run up the score certainly is. 

Although I do suspect your system overrates good teams that go uptempo, just as the tempo-free rankings (like KenPom) overrate good teams that prefer slowdown. 

Posted by tarvolon on 6/1/2013 12:05:00 AM (view original):
People are definitely way too distrustful of point margin. Running up the score may not necessarily go with being a great team, but being in a position to run up the score certainly is. 

Although I do suspect your system overrates good teams that go uptempo, just as the tempo-free rankings (like KenPom) overrate good teams that prefer slowdown. 

I think (KenPom) might overrate slowdown is because they look at points per possesion.  Like Butler, not a lot of possesions, but very efficent with points they  score compared to possesions they have.  I think Efficent is key to tempo free rankings

Again, I want to reiterate that my rankings are meant to tell which team had the best season, not who the best team is.  My rankings aren't predictive at all, there's no guarantee/promise/etc. that #1 would beat all teams, #2 would beat all teams but #1, #3 would beat all teams but #1 and #2, and so on...again they're simply meant to order the teams top down based on the 3 factors I mentioned, analyzed on an individual game basis.  In other words, don't use these (necessarily) in Vegas lol.

Posted by terps21234 on 6/1/2013 12:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tarvolon on 6/1/2013 12:05:00 AM (view original):
People are definitely way too distrustful of point margin. Running up the score may not necessarily go with being a great team, but being in a position to run up the score certainly is. 

Although I do suspect your system overrates good teams that go uptempo, just as the tempo-free rankings (like KenPom) overrate good teams that prefer slowdown. 

I think (KenPom) might overrate slowdown is because they look at points per possesion.  Like Butler, not a lot of possesions, but very efficent with points they  score compared to possesions they have.  I think Efficent is key to tempo free rankings

Exactly. And if you're using points margin, as colonels is, then the more possessions you have, the better (provided that you're a good team). So I suspect that both of them are biased in favor of certain (opposite) styles. Not that they're not still worthwhile. I love KenPom, even if I have to ignore where it puts Wisconsin and Florida every year.