Quote: Originally Posted By thewizard2 on 1/03/2010
I agree margin of victory should be taken into consideration, but not at face value. For instance at 50-30 win should not be equal to a 110-90 win. There should be a percentage calculated into the formula with points scored and total points by both teams

Quote: Originally Posted By daalter on 1/03/2010

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

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 1/03/2010
Also, losing by a point to an elite team is inherently more impressive than beating a terrible team by a point.

No, the win rates higher than the loss. And again, if you think this is a ridiculous concept, I urge you to view my examples on page 1...an undefeated team ranked 136th....a .500 team ranked 13th...all with all wins being rated higher than all losses.

All that shows is that the current formula may need some tweaking, which I've agreed with for years. I did tweak it for this season. All wins are still rated higher than all losses...I will not budge on this concept because teams PLAY TO WIN THE GAMES. If you start playing God and deciding when winning and losing matter, then you're making a ****** ranking system IMO. Moral victories don't count.

What I'm saying is that you may want/need to reconsider certain parts of your philosophy, and what I outlined above is one of them. I've done so over the course of 6+ years...this is one thing I'm not budging on.

Think about real life. If one crappy MEAC team beat another really crappy MEAC team by a point, do you think that winning team would have a realistic shot of staying within a point of Kansas? Of course not.

The way you're looking at things, you're saying that a 1-point win over a crappy MEAC team is more impressive than a 1-point loss to Kansas, and that defies all logic and reason. The point differentials attained from each game are going to be fairly close...its not like the MEAC win is that much better than the Kansas loss. The problem is that you guys want to look at seasons in 1 game vacuums, call me illogical, despite my discrete examples showing how teams with high win % can rank low and vice versa.

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/03/2010
colonels - for starters, i don't consider a guy possibly unjustly getting the #1 seed in the backup tournament a very good example of ranking problems. he played a tough schedule and did decently, i don't think a quality ranking system HA! would position him all that differently. certainly not even close to the worst examples i've seen, and nothing to get up in arms about. Yes he played the best schedule in D2, but he had an overall below average performance against it (12-16) and was utterly bad against the good ranked teams (2-8) Like I said earlier...I had Iowa at 95 at 15-17...they would have made an NIT as an 8 seed....for a 12-16 team to be the OVERALL #1 seed in the NIT (PI)...give me a break. That would go over like a lead balloon IRL.

second, looking out how you rank single games is not looking at seasons in 1 game vacuums. you can consider it from the standpoint of 30 game seasons where the other 29 games are identical if you like. An extreme example that would never happen if two teams have that scenario, it is utterly insane to suggest the team who beat the worst team by 1 in their 30th game is better than the team that lost to the best team by 1 in their 30th game. Its not about who the better teams are, its about who had the best season, given their schedule. the best team would be the worst by what, 50? 100? you completely discredit yourself if you suggest beating the worst team by 1 is better. My results say otherwise, but again you choose to micronize my concepts into 1 game, and guess what, if the season was only one game...yeah, it might look ridiculous, but guess what, there aren't 1 game seasons and that only ends up being about 3% of what happened. I don't release rankings after 1 game because they don't matter. The results are what they are. If you don't believe winning is king, then I don't know what to say. When I have kids, I'll be sure to tell them to lose so guys like you will rate them higher than actual winners. Please review my examples. You do realize that a 1-27 team could rate higher than a 28-0 team in my rankings right?

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/04/2010Oh also, I am about to just start reporting everyone of your forum threads if you keep making new ones. This has to be the 3rd thread I have read started by you intended to get publicity about your ranking system the majority of the people find to be in some form flawed. My website has been around for 5+ years, my days of seeking publicity on this site are over...for about 5 years now. I referenced my BPI in other posts, you asked what it is, so I linked it. I made comparisons to my 2009 rankings here, so I linked it. This post is still about the ridiculousness of a 12-16 team being the #1 overall seed in the NIT. People can think my system's flawed all they want...out of 40 some odd systems last season, my rankings had the best ranking violation percentage on massey ratings so the proof is in the numbers. I don't need validation from people here.

Take the criticism and build upon it I have done so for the last 6 years, a lot of you guys are underestimating me and undermining what I've done...trust me over 6+ years I've about thought of every way possible to rank teams, but just because every last guy thinks he has the right answer here, doesn't mean I should use it., its a good idea that your trying to come up with a new type of ranking system but don't also say that anything is outlandish when it comes to rankings. Like teams having the exact same schedule and scores until game 30. That would never happen and I'm not going to discuss random extreme BS that WILL NEVER HAPPEN...that's people trying to catch me in some sort of misstep and I'm not going to entertain such garbage. Anything can happen in the world of sports and although unlikely a good system can handle anything that is thrown at it and usually is best tested with these extremes. I've shown examples of extremes...a 28-0 against the 28 worst teams in a division...a 14 game season against the top 14 teams in a division...really what more do you want.

Quote: Originally Posted By schroedess26 on 1/04/2010
I dont not understand how you say its nitpicking? Its a major flaw in the system. Some teams pride themselves on holding teams to 40 points a game and just scoring 50-60. While others will put up 100+ and hold their opponent to 80ish. How do you not realize this is a major part of college basketball. Is the team a upbeat run and gun? Or are they a slow it down grind it out and put you away like that? You know how I compensate for this? By making point margin carry very little weight. Analyze the last 3500 games or so about who slowed down, sped up, etc, and get back to me. None of you have really grasped what's humanly possible to do in a ranking system and what isn't.

If you believe point margin should be included in rankings then why doesn't it matter about the point margin based on the team they are? The hows and whys aren't important...the fact is, they happened and in my ranking system, that's all that matters. If you like it great, if you don't like it, that's great too, if you think there are any rankings out there that really account for this kind of thing...find it.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 1/03/2010I actually just tabbed my rankings and if a team were to go 28-0 against the worst schedule possible beating all teams by 50, they would have ranked 136th in my system last year, slightly ahead of 13-17 Oregon State and behind 19-14 Kent State...can you see how this works properly?

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

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 1/03/2010
if two teams have that scenario, it is utterly insane to suggest the team who beat the worst team by 1 in their 30th game is better than the team that lost to the best team by 1 in their 30th game. Its not about who the better teams are, its about who had the best season, given their schedule.