Posted by jetwildcat on 5/19/2013 2:33:00 AM (view original):
just to be clear, if "my team" happened to be 10-17, i would not be fighting to be included in the PIT.

by the same token, isn't it still possible for a 10-17 team to have a "better season" than a 21-9 season? the argument is that NO team that finishes under 0.500 should get the invite, simply out of principle.

another point: it's very easy to develop a system that automatically pushes teams with losing records to the bottom of the list, you just have to abandon the whole "treat the season entirely as the sum of independent games" mantra.

Just for some context...this past season, the highest ranked team with a losing record that I had in real life college basketball was 15-18 Nebraska, ranked 93rd.  Conversely, the lowest ranked team with a winning record was 16-13 New Jersey Tech, ranked 257th.  If you're looking for a more credible comparison, the Sagarin ratings had Nebraska 129th and New Jersey Tech 265th.

So given what my rankings output, can I say that a 10-17 season was/can be better than a 21-9 season?  Yes I can, almost without hesitation, though everything deserves a proper analysis.  Raw wins and losses simply don't tell the story...who you beat and who you lost to matter a ton as well.  Again in my rankings all wins rate higher than all losses, Nebraska finished 3 games under .500, New Jersey Tech finished 3 games over .500 yet there's still a 164? rank difference between the 2.

Context is everything, and I can't/won't/see no reason to change my thought process at this point...it's just how ranking systems work...not just mine.

And again, I just want to point out that when all is said and done, my ranks had you in, the WIS PR had you out...so we're basically on the same team here.

Posted by milwood on 5/19/2013 10:31:00 AM (view original):
man, if only we could find someone that could come up with another ranking system.  Colonels, do you know anybody?

lol

Posted by stinenavy on 5/19/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/19/2013 2:33:00 AM (view original):
just to be clear, if "my team" happened to be 10-17, i would not be fighting to be included in the PIT.

by the same token, isn't it still possible for a 10-17 team to have a "better season" than a 21-9 season? the argument is that NO team that finishes under 0.500 should get the invite, simply out of principle.

another point: it's very easy to develop a system that automatically pushes teams with losing records to the bottom of the list, you just have to abandon the whole "treat the season entirely as the sum of independent games" mantra.

If my team was 21-9 and 19 of the wins were vs bad teams I wouldn't be fighting to be included into the PIT.

alright then

Posted by stinenavy on 5/19/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jetwildcat on 5/19/2013 2:33:00 AM (view original):
just to be clear, if "my team" happened to be 10-17, i would not be fighting to be included in the PIT.

by the same token, isn't it still possible for a 10-17 team to have a "better season" than a 21-9 season? the argument is that NO team that finishes under 0.500 should get the invite, simply out of principle.

another point: it's very easy to develop a system that automatically pushes teams with losing records to the bottom of the list, you just have to abandon the whole "treat the season entirely as the sum of independent games" mantra.

If my team was 21-9 and 19 of the wins were vs bad teams I wouldn't be fighting to be included into the PIT.

also i wouldn't be complaining either if 10-17 wake forest, whom scheduled what turned out to be an easier non-con than i did, hadn't made it over me.