The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/21/2009I'm sorry, COlonels19, but you aren't going to just redefine success and have people agree with you.
Ratings = Talent....W-L = Performance

2 completely different things...a bad team that performs better than a more talented team that performs worse is still WORSE than the more talented team, regardless of the multiple factors mentioned. Would you rather have the horses or not have the horses?
12/21/2009 7:38 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
You boobs are all failing to even CONSIDER my system as legitimate because you think that W-L and SOS are king, when you fail to see the flaws of those mediums in a game where you have solid concrete numerical ratings.
12/21/2009 7:40 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
Not really.

Their IQ's are still what their IQ's are. The players are set in locations by the coach where their individual ratings are going up against the ratings of OTHER individual players, not against the team aggregate. THe players are set to take more or less of specific types of shots. THe shots are channeled through distribution to specific players who have specific ratings who are being guarded by pother specific players who have specific ratings. Then different players within those ratings play different, by design, amounts of minutes. . . then certain players are double teamed, while other players are open.
12/21/2009 7:41 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 7:42 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009


What directly matters when you play an opponent is RATINGS on RATINGS...none of that other BS matters

No, you're dead wrong. You just don't get it. There are a lot of other very, very important factors that don't matter when you're looking at overall measurable team quality.



You can't go ranking teams off of what you think is true, perception, and woulda/coulda/shoulda....facts and reality are what matters. You simply aren't looking at this from a ranking standpoint, so to use a dalter term, YOU'RE DEAD WRONG because you don't understand what you're arguing for or against.

My point exactly. Let's deal with the facts and reality, which is what a team has done over the course of their 30-game season.

And please, don't come to this forum and tell me that I don't understand. You're the one that barely has any grasp of HD.
12/21/2009 7:42 PM
cedarking
Posts: 1 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 2 1
Prospect
So a less talented team that does better than a more talented team should be penalized.



Ranking should be based on performance and not talent...this is where your idea fails. Overall Ratings do not define performance.
12/21/2009 7:42 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 7:45 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
Ok. We have something here. Yes, Dalter wodul do better, likely, with a more talented team than with a less talented team. But here is the rub. . the team HAS THE COACH IT ACTUALLY HAS>
12/21/2009 7:45 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
I'm having swamphawk deja vu to the 9th degree, which is my cue to leave permanently. Verbally pummeling this guy into oblivion can only amuse me for so long. Good luck to everyone else.
12/21/2009 7:46 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/21/2009


What directly matters when you play an opponent is RATINGS on RATINGS...none of that other BS matters

No, you're dead wrong. You just don't get it. There are a lot of other very, very important factors that don't matter when you're looking at overall measurable team quality.



You can't go ranking teams off of what you think is true, perception, and woulda/coulda/shoulda....facts and reality are what matters. You simply aren't looking at this from a ranking standpoint, so to use a dalter term, YOU'RE DEAD WRONG because you don't understand what you're arguing for or against.

My point exactly. Let's deal with the facts and reality, which is what a team has done over the course of their 30-game season. In a game that has concrete measurable numerical rankings, W-L and SOS tell an indirect story, not a direct one that the ACTUAL matchup tells. 30-0 v. 20-10 doesn't mean in the sim what it means in real life. In real life you look at W-L, when scouting/gauging the matchup in this sim, you look at RATINGS, not W-L to gauge whether you'll win or not.

And please, don't come to this forum and tell me that I don't understand. You're the one that barely has any grasp of HD. You don't understand my concepts from a ranking point of view, that's what you don't understand, so stop picking and choosing what you're reading and get with it. I've ranked CFB for 7 years...have you?

12/21/2009 7:47 PM
billabercrom
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 100 42 12
Prospect
I think seble has the right idea. Start the season leaning heavier on the ratings and gradually move to using W/L and SOS. In the end it all that matters is W/L and SOS. But you have to start the season somewhere so start with the ratings.

Finding the curve is the tricky part.
12/21/2009 7:49 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cedarking on 12/21/2009
So a less talented team that does better than a more talented team should be penalized. No, I'm saying that if you beat the less talented team that has overperformed and beat the more talented team that has underperformed by the same score, you're going to get more credit/points/kudos for beating the more talented team, because when it comes down to it, teams win or lose based on their RATINGS and not past or future performance.



Ranking should be based on performance and not talent...this is where your idea fails. Overall Ratings do not define performance.

12/21/2009 7:50 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/21/2009I'm having swamphawk deja vu to the 9th degree, which is my cue to leave permanently. Verbally pumeling this guy into oblivion can only amuse me for so long. Good luck to everyone else.
And another one bites the dust.....

A disagreement is not a victory my friend...the only thing we found out is that you're closed-minded....your gf...pending you have one...bf?...is stoked....
12/21/2009 7:51 PM
arssanguinus
Posts: 1120 (0)
Hall of Famer
282 1
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/21/2009 7:51 PM
cedarking
Posts: 1 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 2 1
Prospect
But what you fail to realize is that not all core ratings are equal, so a 750 rated team may not be a better team than a 700 rated team. And I am not meaning st-du, I am meaning reb, sp, lp, per.
12/21/2009 7:51 PM
◂ Prev 1...19|20|21|22|23...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.