Perhaps I used the wrong word. I don't think a drastic overhaul is needed, but a few tweaks are in order.

Posted by bhazlewood on 10/25/2016 7:49:00 PM (view original):
Perhaps I used the wrong word. I don't think a drastic overhaul is needed, but a few tweaks are in order.

Tweaking (not tweerking) is good. The GUESS reports are very popular and a huge asset to us coaches and there is no reason to do anything drastic.

Twerking is good too

Posted by fermor332002 on 10/24/2016 8:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bjschumacher on 10/24/2016 7:08:00 PM (view original):
Leave them as they are. I don't see any major flaws, and coaches are always free to tweak their own ratings to fit their game.

+1

+2

I think the ratings are fine. Everything can be tweaked and there is nothing wrong with bhazlewood getting some ideas or feedback.

A lot of coaches have varying degrees of ranking players. If you have a specific system that utilizes a lesser ranked player in guess then there is nothing wrong with that.

I view guess as a barometer for where my team is with regards to other coaches and their programs. If guess says I have a top 15 team but the execution is not there then more than likely I need to tweak some game plans on my end. I enjoy viewing them and I will usually utilize them in finding a team to coach if I am not doing a complete rebuild.

Posted by pyt100 on 10/26/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/24/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I'd be willing to help. I think tweaks are all that are necessary, if anything.

with a .690 winning percentage let us know how not to win

Says the person with the following history:

• Lucked into 2 National Titles with my leftovers after I decided to leave NCCU; following a NT run and 3 NT's in 6 seasons.
• Never made it past the Quarterfinals in D1AA.
• Currently has an 80-21 record overall in D1A, but only one season finishing in the WIS Top 10 (shows you typically schedule patsy SIM AI's).
• Currently has a 2-4 record in bowl games at the D1A level.
• Just quit Stanford (Guess Rated #13), after being taken to the woodshed in the Orange Bowl (34-14) by my Syracuse team (Guess #33) that was carrying 13 walkons.

For someone who was just embarrassed by a team that shouldn't have been able to stay on field with them according to GUESS. This is when you should be hiding in a corner with your thumb planted firmly in mouth; begging those of us offering to help Bob make some minor tweaks to do so. You could use the help.

</pyt100>

Posted by orangepace on 10/27/2016 2:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pyt100 on 10/26/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/24/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I'd be willing to help. I think tweaks are all that are necessary, if anything.

with a .690 winning percentage let us know how not to win

Says the person with the following history:

• Lucked into 2 National Titles with my leftovers after I decided to leave NCCU; following a NT run and 3 NT's in 6 seasons.
• Never made it past the Quarterfinals in D1AA.
• Currently has an 80-21 record overall in D1A, but only one season finishing in the WIS Top 10 (shows you typically schedule patsy SIM AI's).
• Currently has a 2-4 record in bowl games at the D1A level.
• Just quit Stanford (Guess Rated #13), after being taken to the woodshed in the Orange Bowl (34-14) by my Syracuse team (Guess #33) that was carrying 13 walkons.

For someone who was just embarrassed by a team that shouldn't have been able to stay on field with them according to GUESS. This is when you should be hiding in a corner with your thumb planted firmly in mouth; begging those of us offering to help Bob make some minor tweaks to do so. You could use the help.

</pyt100>

Well damn, tell us how you really feel.

Damn...

Damn awesome factual breakdown there!

The guess ratings are pretty close. WR tech is overvalued. OL/DL GI is undervauled. Also, now knowing and understanding how Gridiron Dynasty uses cb's for outside run, I think TAK is way undervalued. Other than these minor tweaks(twerks), they work pretty well.

well I don't have an "uber spectacular resume", but I would throw this out there. Only change I would suggest is that maybe we should have one set of ratings for the lower two divisions and one for 1AA and 1A. I say this because it appears WE plays more of a factor at D3 and D2 than 1AA and 1A. Of course ssalmann should give his/her 2 cents since their Cal Bears just beat the bejesus out of my Bruins in Yost.

Posted by starfinder77 on 10/30/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
well I don't have an "uber spectacular resume", but I would throw this out there. Only change I would suggest is that maybe we should have one set of ratings for the lower two divisions and one for 1AA and 1A. I say this because it appears WE plays more of a factor at D3 and D2 than 1AA and 1A. Of course ssalmann should give his/her 2 cents since their Cal Bears just beat the bejesus out of my Bruins in Yost.

At one point I strongly considered different ratings for "recruit class" ratings and another for "full roster" ratings. That was where I tried to incorporate WE into the formulas, to give some value to growth. The problem is that WE alone only tells part of the story of how good a player can become. Potential plays a huge part, as does practice plans, and to some extent, how good your team is (because of the number of extra "practices" you get if you advance in the playoffs.) And, as you noted, player growth is more important at lower levels, so I needed even more formulas. The programming logic became rather unwieldy, and much more prone to errors.

Posted by bhazlewood on 10/31/2016 8:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by starfinder77 on 10/30/2016 4:57:00 PM (view original):
well I don't have an "uber spectacular resume", but I would throw this out there. Only change I would suggest is that maybe we should have one set of ratings for the lower two divisions and one for 1AA and 1A. I say this because it appears WE plays more of a factor at D3 and D2 than 1AA and 1A. Of course ssalmann should give his/her 2 cents since their Cal Bears just beat the bejesus out of my Bruins in Yost.

At one point I strongly considered different ratings for "recruit class" ratings and another for "full roster" ratings. That was where I tried to incorporate WE into the formulas, to give some value to growth. The problem is that WE alone only tells part of the story of how good a player can become. Potential plays a huge part, as does practice plans, and to some extent, how good your team is (because of the number of extra "practices" you get if you advance in the playoffs.) And, as you noted, player growth is more important at lower levels, so I needed even more formulas. The programming logic became rather unwieldy, and much more prone to errors.

Agreed. I think it's not too much trouble to intelligently factor WE into the Recruiting Class Rankings - my Media Guides for Wilkinson do just that. But doing so on a Full Roster Rating makes no sense. The reason is because what we're trying to capture with each Rating is a different aspect of the team.

The Recruiting Class Ratings should, ideally, capture not just the current value of the players in a class, but hopefully also speak to the potential of that class. At the point when those rankings are released, recruits are just that - potential. They haven't played.

Meanwhile, the Full Roster Ratings should be a snapshot of how the team plays, talent-wise, right then and there. We don't care how good a team can be in three seasons when we're trying to compare how they'll play THIS season.

Make sense?

FYI... I'm agreeing with Bob and adding some context of my own.

Posted by orangepace on 10/27/2016 2:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pyt100 on 10/26/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 10/24/2016 5:17:00 PM (view original):
I'd be willing to help. I think tweaks are all that are necessary, if anything.

with a .690 winning percentage let us know how not to win

Says the person with the following history:

• Lucked into 2 National Titles with my leftovers after I decided to leave NCCU; following a NT run and 3 NT's in 6 seasons.
• Never made it past the Quarterfinals in D1AA.
• Currently has an 80-21 record overall in D1A, but only one season finishing in the WIS Top 10 (shows you typically schedule patsy SIM AI's).
• Currently has a 2-4 record in bowl games at the D1A level.
• Just quit Stanford (Guess Rated #13), after being taken to the woodshed in the Orange Bowl (34-14) by my Syracuse team (Guess #33) that was carrying 13 walkons.

For someone who was just embarrassed by a team that shouldn't have been able to stay on field with them according to GUESS. This is when you should be hiding in a corner with your thumb planted firmly in mouth; begging those of us offering to help Bob make some minor tweaks to do so. You could use the help.

</pyt100>

Wow. I want to say that I agree completely with orangepace here. Except I was beaten (by a ton) by pyt100 in the final for the first of his titles so I'm not sure if I am allowed to say anything bad about him.