I just thought of things from a new perspective. We are currently in the potential era, a lot of us starter during pre potential, some coaches who were around for both were more succesful before some are more succesful now. I liken it to the days when D1 basketball was essentially all white (pre potential) and then when blacks started taking over D1 basketball it was a whole new ball game (post potential). So which era should hold more weight the era that doesn't exist anymore, or the current state of the game.

So now I'm back on the bandwagon of the more recent seasons should count due to that being more reflective of how the game actually is today. But like you said I don't think it should be a huge weighting, no more than 20%. But to do this you would need to know the exact season potential was introduced into each world. The way I would do it is, not use the 1st season potential was introduced as the start of that era but use the 3rd season because that is when everybody began having the majority of their players being potential players.

interesting idea kmason. i wish you would say if you felt this way for current or all time lists though, still not sure if you mean both or what.

i am pretty much against the idea for all time lists though. if a guy won 4 titles in 10 years in seasons 10-20 of the original worlds, i don't think he should be at a big disadvantage to a guy who won 4 titles in 10 years in seasons 30-40 just because potential came out. the guy who succeeded in potential will get his due in the current dynasty lists, like oldave pointed out. however, i really like the idea of a potential era only dynasty list. the only thing it is really hasn't been that long, so it wouldn't be much different from the current dynasty list, so maybe in like 6 months or a year i'd do that one.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 2/16/2010

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 2/16/2010
hard for weena to follow?

that is hard for me to even fathom.

come on davey :) for a guy who managed to make so many of the all-time streak lists (including 3 second places - very nicely done!), i'm sure you can manage to figure out the lists themselves :

lemme clarify...

what i was basically saying is that dubya is famous for some very deep, intricate, profound, yet somewhat complex (and perhaps even rambling at times) posts.

So, it is hard for me to fathom that there exists any topic which would be hard for him to follow.

early seasons should count the most, last 20 seasons be weighted maybe like 2% total.

I guess since you are doing 2 seperate lists there probably is no reason to weigh current success more than past success on the all-time lists. Either way I can't wait to see these lists.

Quote: Originally posted by oldave on 2/16/2010seriously, doc, this is awesome... i think this kind of stuff is the real lifeblood of the game and i really dont think it would have the same effect if WIS did it themselves.ive got a couple of comments here, but really, i think i would love what you are doing regardless of whether any of my input is used.1) there have been a couple of comments along the lines of "dont sweat the small stuff". and i would tend to agree... although.... if you are able to get this thing set up to where it would auto-calc once you set the initial formula... then hey, why not sweat the small stuff? (just so long as its not that much sweat) heck, once you are done, just for kicks, compare what you have with lists that others have gnerated (I am assuming they used simpler models using only NTwins and rpi) with your final list and see if the little micro-adjusters caused much difference.2) i tend to think season should be weighted equally on alltime list, though kman does raise valid points. i would tend to think you would be more likely to get it right for HD if you weighted them equally. plus, if you also have a current dynasty list, that is where those with more recent success will get thier due.3) someone referred to "greatest program of the 80's" above... i know it would be way down the road from here, but i sure think it would be cool if you could develop a list of top dynasties for each 10season period for each world(div). 4) world ranking - this is an awesome idea! obviously not easy to come up with a ranking system that will be widely accepted, but if you can do it... that would really fire up some "world pride", wouldnt it? obviously even with a good system there will be arguments... but thats kind of the point,,, isnt it?anyways, really looking forward to seeing the finished product(s). and kinda hoping that this little project might distract you from gameplanning during the latter portion of Tark non-conf this season ;-)

thanks for the feedback!

1) its pretty much automated. the manual part is when the program runs, it spits out the list to a file, and i have to copy paste it into the forums. once its setup, thats all i need to do. so yeah... i do want to put in the effort to tweak the formula, because its a 1 time deal, then 0 additional effort from then on (on top of already posting a less refined list). plus, i think if i put in the effort to do the lists really well, then i think it would give them more credibility, and make it more exciting/rewarding when you find your own name on the list (or more motivating to get your name on there in the first place). plus, like i said, i just LOVE this kind of stuff. its really not much different than the part of HD i enjoy so much.

2) good point :) hopefully, by doing a good variety of these lists, even if somebody gets the shaft a little bit on one, they will get their due somewhere else.

3) i wasn't really planning on doing lists for every single world, just because that really opens the possible lists i could generate. but, the kind of thing you are talking about does not change once a "decade" is completed, so maybe :) i'd also consider doing maybe 1 or 2 lists for every world/division that had to be updated every couple months, that really wouldn't be too bad. if people really wanted all the lists i do cross worlds for their own world, i would probably be willing to do it if they were willing to post it. meaning i would probably be up to generate the 50 files, each containing a list, and email them to somebody every month or two so they could update their own world's individual lists.

4) i hadn't even thought of world strength as its own list, but obviously i have to do that now :) that is cool. i was just thinking as a component to weigh performance across worlds. i think i can come up with an objective system though. i mean after all, for a division that claims to be say the best d3 division of all time, what makes them great? probably, a large number of people sticking it out at schools for a large period of time. that effect is basically exactly what i'd try to capture in my world strength ranking system. obviously, not all 10 year coaches at a school are the same, if you happened to get 300 ORs in a world that would totally break my system. but, i think its probably reasonably fair to assume the average quality of a coach at a school for 10 years is probably about the same across worlds. you think people would be on board with that notion?

im pretty sure that i would get called out pretty quickly if i suggested that someone was overcomplicating things.

I actually think that doc has presented this idea really well, and the true test of that is that even a simple fella like oldavey can pretty much understand all of the words without the need for pictures or slow talking.

as for the streak lists, i can assure you that any momentary happiness i had upon finding my name in second place was all quickly washed away and replaced with a deepest despair upon finding vandydudes name above mine on the alltime NTstreak list. and now i have retired from iba so i guess i will never catch the prince of darkness...

but wait.!... that is a school list, right? come on maddog! you can do it!

(edit: just realized the sonuvamotha just tanked the entire recruiting season and took three walkons... now, in D1 i can see where that might happen sometimes if you get too aggressive, but in d3? with A+ prestige? pretty much unforgiveable. you might as well go ahead and useboosters and just blow the whole program up, maddogg. geez. )

(I'm betting maddoghoops is prolly an alias for vandythedandy.)

Thanks for the breakdown, Billy. I think even oldave can follow it now. I love the concept and I think the results will be awsome to look at.

I would suggest 3 major timeframes to be considered in the charts. First, I would say that the post-potential period should be considered as the current level. Second. the period between the reduction of reward benefits in DII/DIII and the introduction of potential. Third, the start of HD until the reduction. In that 3rd section, please remember that it took about 20 seasons before the Big 6 conferences were even close to having more humans than sims.

The reason for the recommendation of 3 timeframes is that there was a huge loss of coaches following the reduction of rewards and again following the introduction of potential. Other coaches may have a different concept, but that makes sense to me.

well, it seems like most people agree the current dynasty list should weigh more recent seasons more. i am on board with that. so, how do you think that progression should happen? lets vote on a couple options, assuming this is a 10 year current dynasty list -

1) each season drops by 10% of its base value every season. this has the appealing property of a world naturally dropping to 0 at the same point you would artificially drop it to 0 because it the 10 year window. so, the last season would be worth 100%, 2 seasons ago 90% (of the base score), 3 seasons ago 80%, ..., 10 seasons ago 10%, 11 seasons ago 0%. but, in this model, the oldest season is only worth 1/55 or about 2% of the total. the most recent season is worth 10/55 or about 18%. 18% seems pretty reasonable for me as a high, but 2% seems kind of low. so, i also propose...

2) each season drops by 10% of its current value every season. this results in a more even weighing of seasons, but when a season drops off the end, its more noticeable. so, the last season would be worth 100%, 2 seasons ago 90%, 3 seasons ago 81%, 4 seasons ago 73%, ..., 7 seasons ago 53%, ..., 10 seasons ago 39%. The sum of the %s is 651%. So the first season would be worth 15.4% of the total 10 seasons, and the last season would be worth 6% of the total.

3) something else


edit - VOTES: 1 - 0, 2 - 2, 3 - 0

4) obviously, not all 10 year coaches at a school are the same, if you happened to get 300 ORs in a world------ (COuNT ME OuT OF THAT FRIGGIN WORLD, BROTHER!!!!!!) -------that would totally break my system. but, i think its probably reasonably fair to assume the average quality of a coach at a school for 10 years is probably about the same across worlds. you think people would be on board with that notion?

----That seems like a reasonable idea.

In reference to all-time lists, I actually think that older seasons should count more than than more recent seasons in DII and DIII. I'm not sure what season it was that reward points were reduced and potential introduced but that's when DIII and DII started to become ghost towns. The competition really dropped off. IMO, more weight should be given to teams when a division was the most full and active.

When it comes to DI I think the opposite is true. During the 1st 15-20 seasons of a world DI isn't that full. Then after reward points were reduced DI filled up a little more and got more competitive. I'd give more weight to DI in the past 20 seasons than before.

Quote: Originally posted by Weena on 2/16/2010Thanks for the breakdown, Billy. I think even oldave can follow it now. I love the concept and I think the results will be awsome to look at.

I would suggest 3 major timeframes to be considered in the charts. First, I would say that the post-potential period should be considered as the current level. Second. the period between the reduction of reward benefits in DII/DIII and the introduction of potential. Third, the start of HD until the reduction. In that 3rd section, please remember that it took about 20 seasons before the Big 6 conferences were even close to having more humans than sims.

The reason for the recommendation of 3 timeframes is that there was a huge loss of coaches following the reduction of rewards and again following the introduction of potential. Other coaches may have a different concept, but that makes sense to me.

weena - i think you are right that those 3 time frames make a pretty huge difference. and the start of world phenomenon. honestly, i am hoping world strength covers it all. for example, consider a d1 world when there are just like 10 coaches in the world. its WAY easier to make the NT now than in a full, competitive world, right? well, the world strength will be god awful, because sims will count so much less than people.

however, i do understand that world strength has its limitations, and while it may be a great comparison between similar cases (which i expect will be the case), it might be poor between very different cases (which is very possible with all heuristics like the ones i am doing). so, i will probably give it a shot first with world strength, and rely on user feedback to say hey, the teams in these different eras are not being treated fairly, and if that happens, ill manually break it down into the different eras :) another case i worry will struggle with world strength is season 1, d3. i really have no idea how that compares to other worlds. but i can see it being overvalued, because every team is full, or severely undervalued, because no coach has history at the school. i'll have to figure out something to call the history in season -9 to 0, and use that in the calculation. and hope it all even out :O

great feedback!

i think i like option2 better.

Quote: Originally posted by kelby_03 on 2/16/2010In reference to all-time lists, I actually think that older seasons should count more than than more recent seasons in DII and DIII. I'm not sure what season it was that reward points were reduced and potential introduced but that's when DIII and DII started to become ghost towns. The competition really dropped off. IMO, more weight should be given to teams when a division was the most full and active.When it comes to DI I think the opposite is true. During the 1st 15-20 seasons of a world DI isn't that full. Then after reward points were reduced DI filled up a little more and got more competitive. I'd give more weight to DI in the past 20 seasons than before.

i agree completely. if this is the issue you feel most strongly about, then make sure to tune in when i come up with a complete heuristic of how i am going to score teams in the world strength part. and how much of an impact world strength will have! i feel like in established, non ghost town divisions, there will probably be decent variation in # of coaches and how long they stay, but that should not make a final 4 in one drastically more valuable than in the other. but early d1 titles will be such outliers, because the world is SO weak, that they really won't be worth much. i imagine because this is a fairly exclusive list, most of those seasons will effectively be thrown out.

its kinda interesing that all of the "over-the-hill" coaches want more weigth on early seasons.

next thing you know they'll be telling us they had to type with cardboard on thier fingertips, on an 8088-XP PC, in the snow.