Rankings questionn? - Hoops Dynasty

Posts: 2 (0)

Hall of Famer

97 10

Prospect

How do the rankings work? My team beat the #2 and the then #5 team and am 5-1. The latest ranking we didn't even get votes.

1/2/2010 8:15 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

I guess the simple answer here is that the rankings don't work lol.

1/2/2010 8:17 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

I'm kind of in the process of "reverse engineering" a computerized human poll based on one of the EA Sports football games...and am hoping to add a system like this to my 2010 ranking repetoir because I think its vital to get things like this, right. I was really testing the extremes...what would happen if an FCS beat the FBS #1, if the worst FBS team beat the FBS #1...see how it would rake out the top and bottom teams.

I virtually griped about the human poll rankings from the day HD was released in 2004...I've never liked the setup and I think its results err on the bizarre side. I also think that WIS tends to overcomplicate these kinds of processes...I mean, before they even created HD, I wonder if they even looked at human polls and how they work in other games or in real life...or if they just came up with something, didn't compare it to anything and said here's what we're running with. I'd be very interested to learn how the current format operates.

1/2/2010 8:29 PM

schroedess26

Posts: 54 (0)

All Star

29 1 1

Prospect

It would be nice for a new ranking system that took more into effect of who is the better teams. I guess in the end I am just happy if it mirrors the NT selection, at least then you know where you stand in that?

I think part of the problem is that in real life rankings are based off of history mostly. You see it with football for sure with Notre Dame being ranked every year lately at the start, or having USC this year holding on to a top ranking despite losses.

I guess mirroring real life would deal a lot more with prestige of this game than anything. You gotta recreate the thoughts of the writers who vote. Also they could have a coaches poll as well, but it possibly could be abused so might be pointless.

1/2/2010 11:16 PM

girt25

Posts: 2136 (0)

Hall of Famer

1 122 1 1

Rookie

Rankings don't mean anything in real life when it comes to the selection committee. They are great for hyping the game and creating fan interest, but they're voted on by writers who don't see 90%+ of the teams, and assistant coaches or lower who also don't. They are not a tool meant to mirror the selection process or even be a part of it.

For better or for worse, a lot of the HD early season rankings are based off past history.

There are a lot more important things for the them to get right (the engine, etc.), I'd be much happier if they just made the rankings complete window dressing (right now they can have an effect on prestige and promotions) and fixed the stuff that really and truly mattered.

1/3/2010 1:05 AM

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

Quote: Originally posted by friendlygolf on 1/02/2010How do the rankings work? My team beat the #2 and the then #5 team and am 5-1. The latest ranking we didn't even get votes.

rankings at the start of the season are based primarily on the perceived quality of your team and your recent history at that school (if you were not at the school recently, i think recent history is still a factor, but less so. not sure though). as the season progresses, record, rpi, maybe margin of victory and so on become part of the equation. presumably, by season end, pre season rank is only a small part of the picture.

one effect of the above is coaches with new teams, especially ones that were not spectacular before the coach arrived, get shafted in early season rankings. don't sweat it. any effect on your tournament seeding is roughly negligible. even all the other stuff that ranking is a factor in, is fairly negligible, IMO.

1/3/2010 1:45 AM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/03/2010
Quote: Originally posted by friendlygolf on 1/02/2010 How do the rankings work? My team beat the #2 and the then #5 team and am 5-1. The latest ranking we didn't even get votes.

rankings at the start of the season are based primarily on the perceived quality of your team and your recent history at that school (if you were not at the school recently, i think recent history is still a factor, but less so. not sure though). as the season progresses, record, rpi, maybe margin of victory and so on become part of the equation. presumably, by season end, pre season rank is only a small part of the picture.

one effect of the above is coaches with new teams, especially ones that were not spectacular before the coach arrived, get shafted in early season rankings. don't sweat it. any effect on your tournament seeding is roughly negligible. even all the other stuff that ranking is a factor in, is fairly negligible, IMO.

I'm sorry, but the answer to this question shouldn't be WAIT UNTIL NEXT WEEK...that's a weak defense for the system. If a ranking system is output, it should be valid, useful, and presumably "accurate" for EVERY week/cycle that it is produced.

If this happened to friendlygolf in a game I was running, I would attempt to explain to him how and why he's ranked/not ranked where he is given the recent/season results...not tell/assure him that "things will work out, eventually".

1/3/2010 9:21 AM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By girt25 on 1/03/2010
Rankings don't mean anything in real life when it comes to the selection committee. The RPI is a ranking. They are great for hyping the game and creating fan interest, but they're voted on by writers who don't see 90%+ of the teams, and assistant coaches or lower who also don't. Do you really think the selection committee does nothing but watch college basketball all the time? I'd bet that the committee watches the same amount, to a slightly higher amount of cbb than the average sportswriter...coaches rankings are rather ridiculous. They are not a tool meant to mirror the selection process or even be a part of it. You're saying it has no effect? I disagree.

For better or for worse, a lot of the HD early season rankings are based off past history.

There are a lot more important things for the them to get right (the engine, etc.), I'd be much happier if they just made the rankings complete window dressing (right now they can have an effect on prestige and promotions) and fixed the stuff that really and truly mattered. Which is/are? The rankings have been screwed up since 2004...long time, no?

1/3/2010 9:27 AM

dalter

Posts: 71 (0)

All Star

25

Prospect

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/03/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By girt25 on 1/03/2010

Rankings don't mean anything in real life when it comes to the selection committee. The RPI is a ranking.

Come on, you know in the context of this thread, we're talking about the top 25 rankings.

They are great for hyping the game and creating fan interest, but they're voted on by writers who don't see 90%+ of the teams, and assistant coaches or lower who also don't. Do you really think the selection committee does nothing but watch college basketball all the time? I'd bet that the committee watches the same amount, to a slightly higher amount of cbb than the average sportswriter...coaches rankings are rather ridiculous.

No, I don't think the selection committee members watch tons and tons of college basketball, agreed. But they do see a much wider variety of teams, because sportswriters mostly see the team they're covering and the others in that league.

More importantly, sportswriters don't sit down with all kinds of different metrics, results, etc. etc. and spend days trying to determine things and make sure they're well-informed on everything, as the committee does. Huge difference there.

They are not a tool meant to mirror the selection process or even be a part of it. You're saying it has no effect? I disagree.

I know this for a fact. We are family friends with a previous member of the selection committee. Rankings are absoutely not part of the process.

For better or for worse, a lot of the HD early season rankings are based off past history.

There are a lot more important things for the them to get right (the engine, etc.), I'd be much happier if they just made the rankings complete window dressing (right now they can have an effect on prestige and promotions) and fixed the stuff that really and truly mattered. Which is/are? The rankings have been screwed up since 2004...long time, no?

Agreed, rankings have been screwed up for a long time. But that in itself doesn't increase their level of importance. Until they get the engine to work properly, personally I wouldn't spend a nanosecond on rankings.

1/3/2010 10:41 AM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Human polls don't play ANY role for seeding purposes? I think it can be argued that the human polls are better judges of predictive team talent than the RPI is, thus if they're seeding more off of the RPI than off of the polls, I think its a mistake. Personally, I don't like the selection committee at all...my solution (and you all will say OF COURSE THAT'S YOUR SOLUTION) would be to use my rankings...the 31 regular season (not conference tournament) champions make the big dance and the next highest 33 teams according to the BPI are in. I like the numbers to do the talking, not conjecture amongst human beings to determine who's better/best. I expect flak here, but this is how I feel.

The selection committee meets for days? I figured it was a 1 day thing after all the conference tourney games were over on that Sunday or so. Yes they have more info, but it doesn't necessarily mean they're making a better choice(s).

Also, what HD stuff needs fixing here? To me, a ranking fix is at most a day long project...it can't be that hard to change. People have suggested that I'm underestimating the process, but I don't think so...I know WIS likes to complicate things, but the ranking format can't be that complex. Also...we're going on 6 years of arguably "broken" rankings...not a couple months...6 years.

1/3/2010 11:11 AM

schroedess26

Posts: 54 (0)

All Star

29 1 1

Prospect

Colonels are you the maker of BPI? I am just wondering cause you seem to push for this obscure ranking all the time. I know you might be trying to get its name out there but personally I don't think it has its place in HD. Don't take it the wrong way just my opinion.

1/3/2010 1:44 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

Yes I am www.bpisports.com and I'm not necessarily pushing for my rankings to "take over" HD, just mainly talking about it in the context of the real life rankings/situations and how WIS really needs to look into their human polling format, since its almost 6 years old and is as broke as its ever been as some may see it. Understanding how human polls behave and how other "good" games have implemented a computerized human polling is a good start to making a better ranking system in this game. Like I said, I think they skipped that step and just ran with the first thing that came to their mind. I know they've probably made a few tweaks over the years, but no great overhauls like what is probably needed.

Like I said, if you're going to output a weekly/cyclical ranking, it should be valid, useful, and presumably "accurate" each time its processed. Waiting til next week/month/year isn't good enough or a good excuse when it comes to rankings, rather a weak copout.

1/3/2010 7:17 PM

coach_billyg

Posts: 2072 (0)

Hall of Famer

92

Pro

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

1/3/2010 11:58 PM

colonels19

Posts: 4399 (0)

Hall of Famer

78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11

Prospect

You're right billyg, I'm sorry here...I did mis-take you simply answering his question as opposed to defending/excusing the current setup and rankings in general. I apologize.

1/4/2010 11:35 AM

gillispie

Posts: 1766 (0)

Hall of Famer

116

Rookie

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 1/04/2010You're right billyg, I'm sorry here...I did mis-take you simply answering his question as opposed to defending/excusing the current setup and rankings in general. I apologize.

no problemo, aimgo :) almost everything in this game is a gray area, for most things, nobody knows for sure, all you can do is build a feel. it causes a lot of confusion, it happens all the time that people get the impression others are giving answers and advice like they know (in the 100% know sense of the word) the answer. or giving absolutes. or making a stand when they are just trying to provide some information.

i think as a community, we would do well to recognize that people answering questions are by and large answering it for the benefit of the asker, and others, not for themselves. they have good intentions, and are giving their best guess of the answer. most of us recognize there is much more we don't know about the game than we do know, and there are few absolutes. so, if we all assume people are just giving their best guesses, in a good faith attempt to help, it is a lot easier. its damn near impossible to be very precise in a text-based communication system without getting EXTREMELY lengthy, so, we all owe it to each other to give the benefit of the doubt. it is usually deserved.

1/4/2010 11:24 PM

Forums

Rankings questionn? Topic

Search Criteria