College Football - Early Season Fun

[Ming]

You're batting 1.000 today, Ming. He kept it up precisely for 600 posts.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....46&postcount=5

Considering I didn't join the thread until post 242, and your post earlier indicated I should take it like a man... fine... it's been 600 posts for sloww.

[Ming]

How exactly are you going to predict future games unless by determining which team is the better one (on average)? Do you even think about things before you post them?

Do you even think before you post. Look up the definition of Preditor/Prediction. It's just that. And read his own words...

In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).

Please show me where he says it makes one team better than another. All he claims is that it is the best single predictor. But anybody with even half a brain would understand that since it is only based on points and nothing else, it can be fooled in cases like Nebraska. Where they slaughter teams that suck, and then lose to real teams. A balance where they factor in strength of teams and the point differential would make for a far better system than the predictor, since it ignores the fact the bulk of the point differential was based on beating up sisters of the poor.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh my god...

[Ming]

Yes... oh my God, you still don't realize how limited the predictor is... Thanks for continuing to play.

[Drake Tungsten]

Even in defeat, he won't abandon the moronic arguments.

[Ming]

Even in defeat, you won't abandon your moronic arguments.

The "predictor" predicted victories for Nebraska in it's two losses. While it might be the better way to look at scores, it has it's flaws. And one flaw is when a team like Nebraska schedules three sisters of the poor in the first four weeks, and runs up the score on them.

So thanks for continuing to play.

[Drake Tungsten]

The "predictor" predicted victories for Nebraska in it's two losses.

No, it didn't. It predicted that Virginia Tech would beat Nebraska by 3.87 points. How about you get your facts straight before you continue this moronic line of reasoning?

[Ming]

So what was it vs TT

The line of reasoning that a team can stack that kind of ratings with early season blow outs of bad teams is still true. Or are you simply to moronic to understand that simple fact?

[DanS]

You aren't seriously arguing that the predictor needs to be infallible, are you?

[Ming]

No... but Drake seems to be indicating it's the best and only way to look at things.
Plus, I'm pointing out the flaw with the system... Something Drake doesn't seem to understand. He just ignores it and calls it a moronic argument instead of seeing the reality of it.

[rah]

I do have to agree that the methodology is flawed if it indeed weighs point differential high without taking into consideration strength of opponent. A predictor is only as good as it's methodology. Is that really the case with this predictor?

[Drake Tungsten]

No... but Drake seems to be indicating it's the best and only way to look at things.

No. I've spent 600 posts trying to make you understand there are different ways to look at things ("deserving" vs "best") and have made no definitive statement on which way is better. I have, in fact, said that the polls should reward the most "deserving" teams rather than the "best" teams, which indicates that I don't think the Sagarin Predictor is the best way of looking at things.

[rah]

I am still not clear on your distinction between "deserving" and "best". To me the best team is more deserving. I reread your original definition and that didn't make it any clearer to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

That doesn't work on Ming or me Drake. I really hope that lame debate style goes away Drake.

[Drake Tungsten]

I am still not clear on your distinction between "deserving" and "best".

This is the crux of the problem in this thread. Why can't ya'll comprehend the fact that the "best" team doesn't always win due to the influence of confounding factors like home-field advantage and injuries and the influence of random chance? This is basic stuff.