Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 11/06/2009Eh, I'm not a fan of having NBA players matter for anything. It's so arbitrary, and not really the measure of anything terribly relevant.

dalt i almost agree with you but at some point it does show that said coach is able to recruit the top talent and isn't recruiting part of judging how good of a coach someone is?

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 11/06/2009

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 11/06/2009
Eh, I'm not a fan of having NBA players matter for anything. It's so arbitrary, and not really the measure of anything terribly relevant.

dalt i almost agree with you but at some point it does show that said coach is able to recruit the top talent and isn't recruiting part of judging how good of a coach someone is?

Yeah, except that there are plenty of top-flight players that don't get drafted (on teams that didn't do anything in the postseason) and plenty that are only decent and get drafted (because the team went far in the postseason). If consideration is given to postseason success, then that would help to at least cover some of the draft credit.

hey guys,

something has come up. normally this is my slow time of the year at work, so i figured i would bring up this idea and it sounds like there is some interest in it. BUT..

now i got myself into a project at work that looks like it may keep me really busy and just not sure ill have much time for fooling around with stuff like this.

SO... if anyone wants to take the idea and run with it, Great.

or, if you guys just want to throw some ideas around and let the thread die (like someone ironically suggested a few pages back) thats fine too.

if no one else runs with it, i may find time at some point.

but for now, i gotta cut back a bit... might not even have time for full blown rants after the cuse gets screwed...okay, maybe a little mini rant here and there, but thats it.



anyways, i kinda hope someone runs with one of the ideas offered... there are some real good ones.



take er easy fellas,



ol D

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

intersting stuff on iba, OR.

while i would dispute those who say iba D3 is weak, and while i also dont allways agree that D1 is necesarily "harder" in every case than D3, i nonetheless dont feel comfortable with any ranking that puts D3ers at the top of the list.

i still think that the best way... if it were ever possible, would be to have a D1, a D2 and a D3 list.

if i ever do a master list, i think it would either have to have a vote component or else D1 wins and titles would have to be given extra weight. the problem is that wins by division is not as easily attained.

back to the NBA issue... what if NBAers did count? on the logic that this would help account for D1 success? just a thought.

OD, are you just bitter you couldn't win in the Upstate?

;)

He is a very bitter old man. I am not surprised he couldn't hack it in Upstate. He can't handle that conference in any world.

NBA players: The stuff that it kinda/sorta might help measure is already totally taken into account. Coaches that consistently win big in DI are recruiting excellent talent and making runs.

Using NBA draftees is superfluous, and it's also not terribly accurate.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but if extra weight is to be given for those with D1 titles (since they are "harder" to win than D2/D3 titles), shouldn't those coaches who won the first couple of titles in D1 be given less weight for their championships, since they were playing in a division that was mostly Sims at the time? Just a thought.......

Quote: Originally Posted By oldave on 11/06/2009
intersting stuff on iba, OR.

while i would dispute those who say iba D3 is weak, and while i also dont allways agree that D1 is necesarily "harder" in every case than D3, i nonetheless dont feel comfortable with any ranking that puts D3ers at the top of the list.

i still think that the best way... if it were ever possible, would be to have a D1, a D2 and a D3 list.

if i ever do a master list, i think it would either have to have a vote component or else D1 wins and titles would have to be given extra weight. the problem is that wins by division is not as easily attained.

back to the NBA issue... what if NBAers did count? on the logic that this would help account for D1 success? just a thought.

Are you kidding? d3 in iba is w/o a doubt alot weaker in iba(right now) then wooden. In your 11 season in d3 wooden you made 6 nt appearences and ONLY one of those was to the 2nd rnd? You are a great coach but what you do in iba is way better then that. So in perspective either wooden is way tougher OR iba is that much easier!

This is kinda like the BCS. There's no perfect system, short of a playoff, that will please everyone. We just have to pick the system that looks best and tweak it if necessary.

I had similar issues with my Dynasty rankings. I've altered the formula 4 or 5 times since I first began.

One thing that can't be taken into account (but has to be) is factoring in the record against sim teams. I think we all agree that a 18-10 record against a tough schedule is more difficult than a 26-3 in a ghost conference. Perhaps the average rpi is a more true evaluator than the W-L is.

I looked at a D3 world a few months ago and 92 of the 107 human coaches made either the NT or PIT.

A human coach should be able to beat a sim in the 1st round. so 2 me this is a better indicator

Quote: Originally Posted By oldwarrior on 11/07/2009
One thing that can't be taken into account (but has to be) is factoring in the record against sim teams. I think we all agree that a 18-10 record against a tough schedule is more difficult than a 26-3 in a ghost conference. Perhaps the average rpi is a more true evaluator than the W-L is.

I looked at a D3 world a few months ago and 92 of the 107 human coaches made either the NT or PIT.

Totally agreed. Beyond those winning in empty conferences, that also helps account for coaches that consistently put together very difficult schedules and probably have a few more losses than those who do not.