Posted by jsajsa on 8/21/2014 10:23:00 PM (view original):
Anything that updates the dynasty rankings would be awesome in my book! I've been itching for an update for a LONG time to see where my past and current streaks are looking in the total context. Cross world comparisons within HD is about the coolest thing in the game and it's been too long since they last came out. Thank you!!!
To echo tarv's thought though, if I could see the 10 best teams I've ever had, maybe 3 or 4 of them actually won the title. It's just such a crapshoot. I also find SOS by itself to be a completely worthless end of season stat. If whatif somehow gave you access to final numerical RPI numbers that would probably be much more valuable.
I would tend to agree with both you and Gill that just because a team finished 35-0 doesn't "necessarily" make it the "best" team that season. Sure they were the team that ended up with the best results, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there weren't teams that season that weren't stronger than them, if that makes sense. (***Edit***, after rambling a bit, in the third paragraph I think I explain my position a bit clearer. The undefeated team was obviously the best team that year, that's why they had a perfect record. But perhaps another team was "stronger" and just suffered an inexplicable, "the RNG was against you tonight no matter what you did" loss. Semantics, maybe).
(Be forwarned, this is me patting myself on the back, but only just a bit) I've had 19 teams that won titles (I know there are coaches with more titles, but the list is fairly short. Back patting over). Oddly enough, I've yet to have a 35-0 team. Several 1 loss teams (probably 20+, although obviously all of those didn't win titles. Those teams include runner-up, FF, E8, S16 eliminations, etc). Always, always took that one or two losses somewhere before the NT (and some of those were very inexplicable losses, but I digress). The point I'm trying to make through all of this rambling and what you and Gill have somewhat agreed with is that I have had 34-1 or 33-2, 32-3 teams (you get the picture) that I believe to have been significantly stronger than some of the 35-0 teams I've seen. Significant enough to the point that I would have felt "very" comfortable playing and expecting to dominate (to be quite frank) those 35-0 teams.
Not trying to be the contrarian here, hell a 35-0 team is badass and one of the goals in HD I'm still trying to achieve. Just saying that we'd have to be careful about annointing one of those teams the "best" ever (even if it is a rather distinct possibility that one of those teams IS, in fact, the best ever). Of course, I guess to be considered for the title of "best" ever, a team would really HAVE to have an unblemished record. Maybe what I'm trying to explain would fall more under the "strongest" team ever category? Make sense or have I totally confused everyone? Ramble over, I think I may have confused myself.