Conference Championship Week Game Thread

Moderators: studcrackers, bleu

Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,608
And1: 3,359
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#101 » by Bulltalk » Tue Dec 6, 2016 1:27 am

OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.


Why would you say that? You know conference titles mean everything. I mean come on VaTech and UF got to play in them for god sakes. That is prestigious right there!


If I remember correctly, VaTech was driving for the game-tying TD in the final minutes of the game against Clemson.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
User avatar
Cactus Jack
General Manager
Posts: 8,684
And1: 4,013
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: NBA team was stolen
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#102 » by Cactus Jack » Tue Dec 6, 2016 1:30 am

Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.

Get over it! lol
Quazza wrote:ALL FUTURE ERECTIONS WILL BE NAMED KEVIN FOR BEING SUCH A STAND UP GUY
OsuCavsfan103
Analyst
Posts: 3,409
And1: 3,067
Joined: Jul 06, 2014
Location: Ohio
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#103 » by OsuCavsfan103 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 3:19 am

Bulltalk wrote:
OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.


Why would you say that? You know conference titles mean everything. I mean come on VaTech and UF got to play in them for god sakes. That is prestigious right there!


If I remember correctly, VaTech was driving for the game-tying TD in the final minutes of the game against Clemson.


Great. The point is had VaTech won the conference nobody would be putting them in the playoff. Same with Florida. Hell UF could have beaten Bama by 30 and yet people would still say Bama should be in. Why is that? Bc conference winners don't meant best 4 teams.
Cleeeeveland this is for you!
brackdan70
Head Coach
Posts: 7,081
And1: 2,906
Joined: Jul 15, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#104 » by brackdan70 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:16 am

Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.


just some clarification. Michigan did not absolutely rip apart Colorado....Washington did.

Michigan does certainly have a good argument, but looking at common opponents is not the argument.
Bill Walton on Jaylen Brown: ‘This guy is a comet who is scorching across the universe’
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#105 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 12:41 pm

Bulltalk wrote:
Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.


Participation awards for the west coast teams? LOL Since 2000, Pac-12 teams have a winning record over Big Ten teams in head-to-head competition.

how about 2016?
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,608
And1: 3,359
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#106 » by Bulltalk » Tue Dec 6, 2016 3:39 pm

Arda K wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:
Arda K wrote:conference championship argument is dumb and always will be until there is a way to even out the conferences, especially with the way sec and big ten divisions set up. i agree with psu not getting in but for example michigan proved they are as good as the 3rd best team in the country and absolutely ripped apart the big ten champion and pac 12 finalist yet they are not in because washington won a conference that resembles mountain west. idea is to get the best teams in, not to give participation awards to teams from west coast.


Participation awards for the west coast teams? LOL Since 2000, Pac-12 teams have a winning record over Big Ten teams in head-to-head competition.

how about 2016?


One year does not make for a trend or a blanket statement. Such things often go in cycles. A slightly stronger conference than another for a year or two or three could easily reverse itself the next year or two or three.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,608
And1: 3,359
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#107 » by Bulltalk » Tue Dec 6, 2016 4:04 pm

OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:
OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Why would you say that? You know conference titles mean everything. I mean come on VaTech and UF got to play in them for god sakes. That is prestigious right there!


If I remember correctly, VaTech was driving for the game-tying TD in the final minutes of the game against Clemson.


Great. The point is had VaTech won the conference nobody would be putting them in the playoff. Same with Florida. Hell UF could have beaten Bama by 30 and yet people would still say Bama should be in. Why is that? Bc conference winners don't meant best 4 teams.


My main point was that putting emphasis upon conference champions (speaking of the power 5 here) makes regular season games, and especially regular season conference games, even more meaningful. I personally think that's good for the fans and the game. An 8 team playoff format does seem to make the most sense to me. This way all 5 power conference champions make the CFP, and you have the opportunity with 3 wild card teams to mitigate the potentiality of one particular conference being particularly stronger than the others in a given year, or a team like Ohio State, which is clearly one of the best teams, given the chance to get in even though they weren't a conference champion. That's all.

What would such a thing look like this year?

Conference Champions that get in:

--Penn State
--Oklahoma
--Washington
--Clemson
--Alabama

Potential wild card teams getting in:

--Ohio State
--Michigan
--USC

You could make arguments for Florida State, Wisconsin, Colorado, perhaps even Western Michigan getting in over perhaps Michigan or USC, but I don't think anyone is really going to think some grave injustice was done if such teams did or did not supplant one of these two teams in the playoff picture.

Anyway...that's my way of thinking. I think most are somewhat close to this way of thinking around here.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#108 » by Los Soles » Tue Dec 6, 2016 5:39 pm

Arda K wrote:how about 2016?

Big Ten is 3-1 against the Pac-12 so far this season. However...

Two of those games were top half Big Ten teams vs one of the weakest Pac-12 teams. If three top tier Big-12 teams played Rutgers, Purdue, and Illinois, Big 12 would go 3-0 vs Big Ten: wouldn't mean the Big 12 is better than the Big Ten.

The only game that featured teams in the same tier of their respective conferences was Michigan vs Colorado, so congrats to the Big Ten for winning that one. However, it doesn't say near as much you think it does. It's one game: that's your relevant sample size. And despite Michigan being at home, Colorado led much of the game, including in the second half. And the Colorado QB got injured. Flip that script: Colorado at home, and Michigan QB injured: I think it's pretty easy to extrapolate to a Colorado win.

By the way, the Pac-12 was 4-1 against the Big Ten at this point in the season in 2014.

You mentioned a while ago that Sagarin is worthless until the end of the season. Well, it's the end of the season:

Sagarin Conference Ratings -- Simple Average

  1. Pac-12 -- 78.195
  2. SEC -- 77.335
  3. Big Ten -- 76.92
  4. ACC -- 75.695
  5. Big 12 -- 73.77
You keep talking about the Pac-12 like it's a terrible conference. An objective analysis actually rates it as THE BEST conference in college football when you look at the whole conference, top-to-bottom.

And here's another unbiased perspective, Massey's top 12:

  1. Alabama
  2. Washington
  3. Ohio St
  4. USC
  5. Penn St
  6. Michigan
  7. Clemson
  8. Oklahoma
  9. Colorado
  10. Wisconsin
  11. Stanford
  12. Florida St
Massey and Sagarin, unbiased programmatic rating systems that have been fine-tuned for years: "the Pac-12 is really really good." Arda, incredibly biased nobody: "the Pac-12 is a joke."

Hmm...who should we listen to??? :dontknow:
OsuCavsfan103
Analyst
Posts: 3,409
And1: 3,067
Joined: Jul 06, 2014
Location: Ohio
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#109 » by OsuCavsfan103 » Tue Dec 6, 2016 6:17 pm

Bulltalk wrote:
OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:
If I remember correctly, VaTech was driving for the game-tying TD in the final minutes of the game against Clemson.


Great. The point is had VaTech won the conference nobody would be putting them in the playoff. Same with Florida. Hell UF could have beaten Bama by 30 and yet people would still say Bama should be in. Why is that? Bc conference winners don't meant best 4 teams.


My main point was that putting emphasis upon conference champions (speaking of the power 5 here) makes regular season games, and especially regular season conference games, even more meaningful. I personally think that's good for the fans and the game. An 8 team playoff format does seem to make the most sense to me. This way all 5 power conference champions make the CFP, and you have the opportunity with 3 wild card teams to mitigate the potentiality of one particular conference being particularly stronger than the others in a given year, or a team like Ohio State, which is clearly one of the best teams, given the chance to get in even though they weren't a conference champion. That's all.

What would such a thing look like this year?

Conference Champions that get in:

--Penn State
--Oklahoma
--Washington
--Clemson
--Alabama

Potential wild card teams getting in:

--Ohio State
--Michigan
--USC

You could make arguments for Florida State, Wisconsin, Colorado, perhaps even Western Michigan getting in over perhaps Michigan or USC, but I don't think anyone is really going to think some grave injustice was done if such teams did or did not supplant one of these two teams in the playoff picture.

Anyway...that's my way of thinking. I think most are somewhat close to this way of thinking around here.


Here is the problem for me though from automatic tie-ins. You are going to get even weaker OOC games. Washington's OOC was awful this year. Yes they are still a good team but that's not the point. Do you really want that to become a trend where all teams only care about winning their conference? Could you imagine if a team lost to 2 weak OOC teams but somehow did well in conference and won the conference. Not to mention not all conferences are equal, nor is the requirement to make the playoffs. Wisc lost to OSU and UM, yet made the conference title bc of divisions. OSU did better in the B10 but lost out in divisional separation. If VaTech beat Clemson this past weekend do you really think they deserve the playoffs now?

I am all for 8 teams in, but I do not think conference winners should be automatic. If your team is worthy and you win the conference, you are going to get in anyhow. If you don't take care of business to get in normally, you shouldn't be rewarded for simply winning your conference.
Cleeeeveland this is for you!
Bulltalk
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 33,608
And1: 3,359
Joined: Jun 25, 2002
Location: Seattle Area
       

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#110 » by Bulltalk » Tue Dec 6, 2016 6:59 pm

OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Bulltalk wrote:
OsuCavsfan103 wrote:
Great. The point is had VaTech won the conference nobody would be putting them in the playoff. Same with Florida. Hell UF could have beaten Bama by 30 and yet people would still say Bama should be in. Why is that? Bc conference winners don't meant best 4 teams.


My main point was that putting emphasis upon conference champions (speaking of the power 5 here) makes regular season games, and especially regular season conference games, even more meaningful. I personally think that's good for the fans and the game. An 8 team playoff format does seem to make the most sense to me. This way all 5 power conference champions make the CFP, and you have the opportunity with 3 wild card teams to mitigate the potentiality of one particular conference being particularly stronger than the others in a given year, or a team like Ohio State, which is clearly one of the best teams, given the chance to get in even though they weren't a conference champion. That's all.

What would such a thing look like this year?

Conference Champions that get in:

--Penn State
--Oklahoma
--Washington
--Clemson
--Alabama

Potential wild card teams getting in:

--Ohio State
--Michigan
--USC

You could make arguments for Florida State, Wisconsin, Colorado, perhaps even Western Michigan getting in over perhaps Michigan or USC, but I don't think anyone is really going to think some grave injustice was done if such teams did or did not supplant one of these two teams in the playoff picture.

Anyway...that's my way of thinking. I think most are somewhat close to this way of thinking around here.


Here is the problem for me though from automatic tie-ins. You are going to get even weaker OOC games. Washington's OOC was awful this year. Yes they are still a good team but that's not the point. Do you really want that to become a trend where all teams only care about winning their conference? Could you imagine if a team lost to 2 weak OOC teams but somehow did well in conference and won the conference. Not to mention not all conferences are equal, nor is the requirement to make the playoffs. Wisc lost to OSU and UM, yet made the conference title bc of divisions. OSU did better in the B10 but lost out in divisional separation. If VaTech beat Clemson this past weekend do you really think they deserve the playoffs now?

I am all for 8 teams in, but I do not think conference winners should be automatic. If your team is worthy and you win the conference, you are going to get in anyhow. If you don't take care of business to get in normally, you shouldn't be rewarded for simply winning your conference.


It's really the only good argument that I can see against the automatic playoff entry for conference champions, that being the argument you put forth. But whenever I mull that over, I can make just as strong of a case, even a better case, that this is still the way to go. Conference games, rivalry games, should have the most significance you can make of them. This is college, the college experience. These conference games, rivalry games, are the buzz of a campus, town, city, region. They're exciting, have a history to them. Making them as meaningful as possible just serves to accentuate the intensity of the experience of them for all involved.

Also, there is no guarantee that a likely contending team will in fact win the conference, so there is certainly incentive to have a decent out of conference schedule just in case. It gives such teams a greater chance of making the CFP than merely being conference champions, some added hope and incentive in that regard. It's pretty easy to imagine a Michigan, Ohio State, Washington, USC, LSU, Clemson, Florida State, Oklahoma, Texas, etc.., being the second, or even third best team in their conference, yet a team solidly on the bubble for a playoff wild card spot because of their overall record in conjunction with their strength of schedule. Hell, the committee could even make it clear that out of conference strength of schedule would be even more heavily weighted in this way than it is now when deciding such wild card berths. And strength of schedule could also come into play when determining playoff seedings, as well where the games will be played, obviously favoring the stronger teams in this regard. So there's that, too.

Lastly, generally speaking, most good teams, their fan bases, and their respective college administrations want to play a decent out of conference schedule, and most do. Such out of conference schedules, somewhat more or less, are comprised of one likely strong opponent, one middling opponent, and one cupcake. I don't really see that changing much. It doesn't help to have your stadium half empty and or bored much of the time during such contests.

Anyway...my thoughts on this matter.
"I'm a truth teller. All I do is tell the truth."

(Donald Trump - 8/11/16)
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#111 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:24 pm

Los Soles wrote:
Arda K wrote:how about 2016?

Big Ten is 3-1 against the Pac-12 so far this season. However...

Two of those games were top half Big Ten teams vs one of the weakest Pac-12 teams. If three top tier Big-12 teams played Rutgers, Purdue, and Illinois, Big 12 would go 3-0 vs Big Ten: wouldn't mean the Big 12 is better than the Big Ten.

The only game that featured teams in the same tier of their respective conferences was Michigan vs Colorado, so congrats to the Big Ten for winning that one. However, it doesn't say near as much you think it does. It's one game: that's your relevant sample size. And despite Michigan being at home, Colorado led much of the game, including in the second half. And the Colorado QB got injured. Flip that script: Colorado at home, and Michigan QB injured: I think it's pretty easy to extrapolate to a Colorado win.

By the way, the Pac-12 was 4-1 against the Big Ten at this point in the season in 2014.

You mentioned a while ago that Sagarin is worthless until the end of the season. Well, it's the end of the season:

Sagarin Conference Ratings -- Simple Average

  1. Pac-12 -- 78.195
  2. SEC -- 77.335
  3. Big Ten -- 76.92
  4. ACC -- 75.695
  5. Big 12 -- 73.77
You keep talking about the Pac-12 like it's a terrible conference. An objective analysis actually rates it as THE BEST conference in college football when you look at the whole conference, top-to-bottom.

And here's another unbiased perspective, Massey's top 12:

  1. Alabama
  2. Washington
  3. Ohio St
  4. USC
  5. Penn St
  6. Michigan
  7. Clemson
  8. Oklahoma
  9. Colorado
  10. Wisconsin
  11. Stanford
  12. Florida St
Massey and Sagarin, unbiased programmatic rating systems that have been fine-tuned for years: "the Pac-12 is really really good." Arda, incredibly biased nobody: "the Pac-12 is a joke."

Hmm...who should we listen to??? :dontknow:


problem is you dont understand any of the rankings you keep posting or you dont bother to check how they are calculated. sagarin uses central mean, which is a comparison between teams ranked middle of the conference, i.e minnesota, northwestern, indiana vs. utah, california, stanford, which is absolutely useless ranking when it comes to determining who belongs to playoffs because none of those teams pose any threat to playoff level teams. on the flip side teams like michigan, psu, wisconsin, usc do pose a significant threat therefore their weight should be much higher, not much less. it is prudent to understand the stats you are posting to avoid embarrassment.

and sagarin does look much better at the end of the season, that's why he has 2 big ten teams in playoffs and 4 of his top 7 teams are from big ten 8-)
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#112 » by Los Soles » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:31 pm

Arda K wrote:problem is you dont understand any of the rankings you keep posting or you dont bother to check how they are calculated. sagarin simple average is an arithmetic mean, which is a comparison between teams ranked middle of the conference, i.e minnesota, northwestern, indiana vs. utah, california, stanford

Completely false, oh belligerently dense one. :banghead:

See here:

Sagarin wrote:The "simple average" ("arithmetic mean") weights each team equally no matter where they are relative to the middle.

Arda K wrote:it is prudent to understand the stats you are posting to avoid embarrassment.

Yeah, you should think about that.
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#113 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 7:54 pm

Los Soles wrote:
Arda K wrote:problem is you dont understand any of the rankings you keep posting or you dont bother to check how they are calculated. sagarin simple average is an arithmetic mean, which is a comparison between teams ranked middle of the conference, i.e minnesota, northwestern, indiana vs. utah, california, stanford

Completely false, oh belligerently dense one. :banghead:

See here:

Sagarin wrote:The "simple average" ("arithmetic mean") weights each team equally no matter where they are relative to the middle.

Arda K wrote:it is prudent to understand the stats you are posting to avoid embarrassment.

Yeah, you should think about that.


i am talking about central mean..

The "central mean" gives the most weight to the middle team(s)
in the group and progressively less weight to teams as you go
away from the middle in either direction, up or down.


they even put out a chart for less intelligent to understand

4-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-2-1
5-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-2-1
6-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-3-2-1
7-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-3-2-1
8-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-4-3-2-1
9-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2-1
10-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-5-4-3-2-1
11-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-6-5-4-3-2-1
12-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-6-6-5-4-3-2-1
13-team group ___ the weights are 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#114 » by Los Soles » Tue Dec 6, 2016 8:15 pm

From the beginning I was talking about "Simple Average", which I quite clearly wrote, as you did as well:

Arda K wrote:problem is you dont understand any of the rankings you keep posting or you dont bother to check how they are calculated. sagarin simple average is an arithmetic mean

Only just now did you switch to talking about central mean:

Arda K wrote:i am talking about central mean..

Oh, now you are, huh? No one else had mentioned it...

It's one thing to make a mistake. It's quite another to call someone else out for being *wrong*...when YOU are the one that's wrong, the "less intelligent" one.

Image
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#115 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 8:22 pm

central mean is a component of the sagarin ranking you posted, buddy boy. you are the one that brings up and treats sagarin as god's decree, learn to deal with it when it blows up to your face.

i can only hope mods will take action for these rude personal attacks
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#116 » by Los Soles » Tue Dec 6, 2016 8:28 pm

Arda K wrote:central mean is a component of the sagarin ranking you posted, buddy boy. you are the one that brings up and treats sagarin as god's decree, learn to deal with it when it blows up to your face.

Dude, this is unbelievable. You're wrong!!! I don't even understand how you don't see it. Are you like 15, or just that belligerently dense? I honestly don't understand...

Sagarin posts three different ways of comparing conferences. I posted Simple Average. He also has Central Mean. I didn't post that one. "central mean" is NOT a component of "simple average". They're two different rankings.

By the way, in ALL THREE of his different conference rating systems, the Pac-12 finishes in front of the Big Ten.

Image
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#117 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 8:33 pm

talks about maturity then tries to make an argument with internet memes, ironing is strong with this one.
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#118 » by Los Soles » Tue Dec 6, 2016 8:51 pm

*repeatedly insults someone else for being wrong, when he's the one who's been wrong the entire time*

*refuses to admit he's wrong, even when he finally realizes it*

*changes the subject instead of admitting a mistake; tries to attack again instead*


Just admit you were wrong, dude.
User avatar
Arda K
RealGM
Posts: 47,970
And1: 18,758
Joined: Apr 11, 2007
Location: Frisco
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#119 » by Arda K » Tue Dec 6, 2016 9:04 pm

this is not about me being right or wrong, i merely point out the significant flaws of the random rankings you post. i understand why you tried to save a face by cherry picking within those rankings and moving the goal posts, but losing control of your emotions and taking the discourse to such low levels is not nice.
TheLowlySquire wrote:Wow, Arda! Huge!


Howard Mass wrote:Arda is not a terrorist. Arda is a good person.
User avatar
Los Soles
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,905
And1: 387
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Location: Boise, ID
     

Re: Conference Championship Week Game Thread 

Post#120 » by Los Soles » Wed Dec 7, 2016 3:24 pm

quick recap...

My original post:

Los Soles wrote:Sagarin Conference Ratings -- Simple Average

  1. Pac-12 -- 78.195
  2. SEC -- 77.335
  3. Big Ten -- 76.92
  4. ACC -- 75.695
  5. Big 12 -- 73.77

Note the Simple Average in the title. Not sure how I could have made that any more clear? Anyway, I chose "Simple Average" intentionally, so as not to complicate things. I think most people know what a "Simple Average" is, even without Sagarin's explanation.

Arda's response:

Arda K wrote:problem is you dont understand any of the rankings you keep posting or you dont bother to check how they are calculated. sagarin simple average is an arithmetic mean, which is a comparison between teams ranked middle of the conference, i.e minnesota, northwestern, indiana vs. utah, california, stanford

...and...

Arda K wrote:it is prudent to understand the stats you are posting to avoid embarrassment.

So he attempts to insult me for not understanding what I'm posting. However, he writes "simple average", but then proceeds to describe Sagarin's "Central Mean" formula, which gives extra weight to teams in the middle ("Simple Average" doesn't do that). So he's the one who's clearly not understanding what I posted. Now, getting "Simple Average" and "Central Mean" confused? That's just a mistake -- no big deal. But specifically posting to insult someone else for not understanding, when Arda is the one who is clearly not getting it?? Ridiculous.

So I respond by calling him out and posting the definition of "Simple Average" from Sagarin:

Sagarin wrote:The "simple average" ("arithmetic mean") weights each team equally no matter where they are relative to the middle.

Arda's response:

Arda K wrote:i am talking about central mean..

This is the first mention of central mean in the thread. So this is a completely ridiculous comment. But yes, he had clearly confused "Simple Average" with Sagarin's explanation of "Central Mean". Despite his entire argument being built on an error, he adds this gem to continue to try to insult me:

Arda K wrote:they even put out a chart for less intelligent to understand

:roll:

So then I called him out for confusing "Simple Average" and "Central Mean". And this is his response:

Arda K wrote:central mean is a component of the sagarin ranking you posted, buddy boy. you are the one that brings up and treats sagarin as god's decree, learn to deal with it when it blows up to your face.

So I guess now he's arguing that "Central Mean" is a "component" of "Simple Average". Huh? No, it's not. These are two different rating systems that Sagarin posts on the same page. "Simple Average" is exactly what it sounds like: a SIMPLE. AVERAGE. This is elementary school stuff. Arda's creating new layers of ridiculousness, but still trying to insult me and claim that this has "blown up in my face".

I post this:

Los Soles wrote:Sagarin posts three different ways of comparing conferences. I posted Simple Average. He also has Central Mean. I didn't post that one. "central mean" is NOT a component of "simple average". They're two different rankings.

But still, he refuses to acknowledge that he's made a mistake, and continues to attack me.

Arda K wrote:this is not about me being right or wrong, i merely point out the significant flaws of the random rankings you post. i understand why you tried to save a face by cherry picking within those rankings and moving the goal posts

Huh? I never "moved the goal post": this has always been about Sagarin's "Simple Average". Arda errantly attempted to point out a flaw that didn't exist, because he didn't understand "Simple Average" vs "Central Mean", but claimed I didn't understand it.

_________


So Arda just kept up a barrage of insults toward me, but the entire discussion was based on him making multiple errors, when this all started with a SIMPLE Average. I don't understand how someone can continue to attack and fling insults and refuse to acknowledge they made a simple mistake? :dontknow: This is beyond ridiculous.

I'd love it if Arda would simply admit the error and give a quick apology. I feel like that's how discourse in this world should happen, even on a sports internet discussion board. But admitting a mistake and apologizing is a hard thing to do, and requires strong character, so I don't expect it at this point.

But in that same vein, in an attempt to improve the discourse: Sorry, Arda, for the meme-level attacks. Those were unnecessary and unhelpful.

Can we go back to arguing about *slightly less ridiculous* **** now?

Return to NCAA Football