Posted by udm_mike on 5/22/2013 7:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by colonels19 on 5/20/2013 8:59:00 PM (view original):So is it not harder to beat a crappy team than it is to lose to a good team? I notice neither of you answered my question.
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 11:37:00 PM (view original):This...I can't believe how people are basically just willing to throw SOS out the window for 14-13...wow, unreal.
Posted by ll316 on 5/19/2013 10:00:00 PM (view original):It's harder to go 5-5 against a difficult schedule than 10-0 against sims.
Posted by ike1024 on 5/19/2013 9:49:00 PM (view original):It definitely can. But isn't it harder to beat a crappy team than it is to lose to a good one?
"But where's the incentive to actually coach if you're guaranteed a PT berth based on a high (high as in good) SOS?"
Don't disagree, but can't the same be said about scheduling 10 crappy sims?
I first want to say that the redlined/deleted post, the first one, would have shed a lot of light about how I feel in this situation, but I'll be happy to break it down for you again...so here's what I'll say.
I used to think that the PR and my BPI cbb rankings were very similar. The controversial times that I would plug the numbers into my formula, they always seemed to produce the same results as the PR, thus I backed it unequivocally. After doing an analysis with jetwildcat's situation and finding that I would have had Loyola-MD #1, Virginia Tech #2, and Wake Forest #3, I've basically pulled a lot of/all my support for the PR because it doesn't in fact reflect what my rankings do...I think my rankings/way of ranking teams is the best and if I didn't, then why would I do it? What I realized as someone who has produced college football rankings for 10 years and college basketball rankings for 4 years was/is that the ranking system (projection report) needs to be improved.
All wins rate higher than all losses in my BPI rankings, and I specifically made this so because if you rate some losses over some wins, you're inherently suggesting that winning and losing don't matter (when winning is the object of any game) and that's just crazy. So yes a 1 point win over the 324th ranked team rates higher than a 1 point loss to the #1 team...but understand that such a comparison is only 1/27th (3.5%?) of an entire schedule, thus each game on every schedule has equal weight and needs to be viewed in its own individual manner until you have 27 indvidual game analyses v. 27 individual game analyses.
With that said, the highest ranked team with a losing record in my 2013 NCAAB rankings was Nebraska (15-18) at #93 and the lowest ranked team with a winning record was New Jersey Tech (16-13) at #257...a difference of 164 spots! Also note that there are at least over 100 references of this in my rankings (and probably a bunch of other ranking systems) having teams with losing records ahead of teams with winning records.
So I'm not nor ever will I back some patchwork, patch-based argument for a minimum win requirement because it's absolutely asinine and unnecessary. Again with my all wins > all losses ranking format, there are still "losing" teams that rank over 150! spots higher than "winning" teams and this is in real life.
Jetwildcat seems to want to still clamor about this and at me WHEN MY SYSTEM BACKS HIS TEAM/ARGUMENT! That's unreal...and that's the fix, folks. I don't like using the I'm better/smarter than you argument, but in truth, I've developed, researched, and produced rankings of all kinds more than most of you have ever even thought about how it might/should work. That's not a slap at any of you, it's just a reference point of how much I've done along the way and my mental madness, the things that interest me in sports, etc.
If any of you reject what I have to say for whatever reason, my candor, etc...I would refer you to gillispie's posts in this thread because they're spot on. Understand that I'm very set on my conclusions here because this is something I thought about in depth and worked on 4+ years ago.
The Projection Report is better than just using base RPI (which was what was used before, solely?) but given jetwildcat's incident here, it's proven that it needs some/a lot of work...again a win requirement of any kind just makes excuses for a poor/inadequate system.
5/22/2013 10:50 AM (edited)