Moderators: mjda76384, granger, freeagent
rainjacktx wrote:290 teams now versus how many 10 years ago? Plus the Toy is not a static creation. It is dynamic. Some say it might actually be sentient, which is why it consistently has Richland Springs ranked #1. I don't believe it myself, but there are rumors out there.
granger wrote:the Ratings numbers mean NOTHING year-to-year.
In 1993, the system was created to have a theoretical perfect team be 100. If was a zero-sum game. If you want to understand this, I suggest Lester Thurow's book, The Zero Sum Solution or The Zero Sum Society. He was the Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management. I created a system which used some of the ELO rating system, modified to meet this philosophy.
Early on, I realized that this made no sense. Especially because I was also trying to make the spreads easily interpretable from the ratings. This didn't work when Team A 45's Team B and Team B 45's Team C and Team C 45's Team D. Now you have Team A somewhere between 45-135 points better than team D.
One of main things I wanted to do was rank EVERY team and I certainly don't want teams to drop below 0, if at all possible.
So you can see the dilemma.
Also, as the system gets bigger and bigger with the number of schools, I have had to implement better ways of trying to keep everything in perspective. The system is much more robust than before and involves many more machine learning philosophies than before.
51eleven wrote:I'm not good with math. "inverse Reganomics"? So it's kind of a trickle down thing? Or something to do with logarithms?
smokeyjoe53 wrote:Good thing about Granger's system is that it takes all discussion and controversy out of the mix...................
Right?.................
Return to six-man football talk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests