Warrior General Games

Well, when a conference literally only wins 5 out of 16 non-conference games it's pretty obvious that conference isn't as good as the other. It's not rocket science.




2 edits for calling conferences "leagues"

I am not in this conference but what Dub said is right the top 5 maybe 6 teams from the east could have went undefeated in the west. at 14-0 kings crusaders haven't played anywhere near as tough a schedule as say a 11-3 seattle wave or bone griffens have. It isn't picking on your team or anything it is just a simple fact that the Crusaders are in a weak conference.

Yep, the SOS says it all.

Originally posted by Dub J
Well, when a conference literally only wins 5 out of 16 non-conference games it's pretty obvious that conference isn't as good as the other. It's not rocket science.




2 edits for calling conferences "leagues"

Really, a lot can change from Game 1 till now..that really does not hold water especially in Rookie.

Originally posted by Dub J
Yep, the SOS says it all.

This is not correct. That should never be the sole contributor. Seattle's a great team, but their loss to Arkansas should drop them from the top 3. Arkansas is a good team and all, but a loss (then) 9-4 team should remove them from the top 3. In fact, every rankings post since their first loss has dropped them behind the Crusaders, but they lose a 3rd game and suddenly jump us? Yeah, SOS or not that's faulty.

Look at the scores in the east vs. the west. While the top teams in the west are good, they have been feasting on quite a bit more weaklings than teams in the east. Texas (top team in the East) has scored 100 or more in 2 games. KC (official top team in the West) has scored 100 or more in 5 games. Detroit (the real top team in the West) has hit 100+ in 8 games, including scoring 200+ in two games. Texas will not score 100 again this regular season. Detroit probably won't, and KC has one more 100+ on their schedule.


It's obvious there are more creampuffs in the West than the East. Keep in mind that the rankings aren't predicting who will win the league. It's merely ranking teams based on what they have done up to this point.

Originally posted by whatspeakyou
This is not correct. That should never be the sole contributor. Seattle's a great team, but their loss to Arkansas should drop them from the top 3. Arkansas is a good team and all, but a loss (then) 9-4 team should remove them from the top 3. In fact, every rankings post since their first loss has dropped them behind the Crusaders, but they lose a 3rd game and suddenly jump us? Yeah, SOS or not that's faulty.

lol

They didn't jump. You're looking at two different rankings by two different people made about the same time.

Originally posted by Dub J
lol

They didn't jump. You're looking at two different rankings by two different people made about the same time.

No I'm not. I'm going off every ranking posted since Seattle lost their first game (in fact I stated this point in the post you quoted). It's been quite a few games that we've outranked them. In fact, you haven't posted rankings in quite some time. This is why I'm not getting how exactly you're coming to this conclusion.

Originally posted by whatspeakyou
No I'm not. I'm going off every ranking posted since Seattle lost their first game (in fact I stated this point in the post you quoted).

DUDE It's a script. It's not my own personal opinion. lol

Yes, my rankings are flawed and so is the other one. I'm sure we are using the same script. It all has to do with which options you choose. I prefer to only use regular season games and team talent.

A write-up is the only way you're going to get a more accurate ranking. Problem is that is very time consuming if done properly with no payoff. I used to make league write-ups back in the day. Got sick of spending a couple of hours every 2 days just so the same 4 people will post "good job" with -0- discussion.

Originally posted by vinman
Originally posted by Dub J

Well, when a conference literally only wins 5 out of 16 non-conference games it's pretty obvious that conference isn't as good as the other. It's not rocket science.




2 edits for calling conferences "leagues"

Really, a lot can change from Game 1 till now..that really does not hold water especially in Rookie.

I agree things can change alot but seriously look at your conference there are 2 possibly 3 good teams in that conference. in the west there are 5 or 6 teams that I would consider good teams. the east is a weaker league and what Dub said was basically right the first games of the season is based more on the dots than anytime. because none of the teams know what the others are going to try to do for the most part.

Originally posted by whatspeakyou
No I'm not. I'm going off every ranking posted since Seattle lost their first game (in fact I stated this point in the post you quoted). It's been quite a few games that we've outranked them. In fact, you haven't posted rankings in quite some time. This is why I'm not getting how exactly you're coming to this conclusion.

http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=4778736&page=5#44165855

They dropped two spots since the last time I posted a ranking, tbh. Not sure what you're looking at.

That link you posted throws your SOS base right down the shitter. In fact, half of those rankings are all over the place based off record, Off/Def performance, and SOS factored in. What exactly are the options you're going with for the script?

Seriously, it's like you're taking this personally or something. As I posted earlier, if you don't like the script than post your own rankings.

Hell, the only reason I posted rankings is due to the fact my team was rated too low in the other rankings after pulling off an upset. The rankings can be manipulated to fit what anyone wants. I try my best to use the most fair options.


Which part(s) of the season do you want to include? Regular season (didn't include preseason or playoffs)

Do you want to consider pre-season, regular season, and playoff games to be equal? No

Do you want recently played games to weigh more than an older game? No

Do you want to include team talent? Yes

Do you want to include the lifetime record of each team? No

Do you want the results to be formatted for easy posting into the forums? Yes

Output next week's projected scores (only works from weeks 2-15)? Yes

Originally posted by Dub J
Seriously, it's like you're taking this personally or something. As I posted earlier, if you don't like the script than post your own rankings.

Honestly man it doesn't bother me that much. I just don't get why you'd bother to post something obviously flawed. When New York loses to Texas and Texas still stays at #2 behind New York, that should've indictated "hey maybe these aren't right." Nevermind not having a winless CPU team sitting anywhere BUT dead last.

I'm not mad at you for your opinion Dub. Your points on Seattle are valid. But really, that's got no bearing on how your script's rankings turn out. What i'm telling you is maybe tinker with your options before posting it again.

Edit: based on your options, frankly I don't know why yours would be so strikingly different. That's actually kind of odd.

Originally posted by Dub J
Crusaders play in the weaker conference.

In week 1 the East won 11 of 16 games.


Yeah, in week 1...This is week 14, totally new ballgame...but that's just my opinion.