Sorry rails. I should have picked up on that, it's been a rough few weeks and I've been pretty out of it come night time.

Quote: Originally posted by dalter on 6/03/2010I think Rails was kidding.
And I agree with you leaving out CT performance -- it's just an arbitrary slice of a couple games.

Nice work!

thanks :)

i really don't think the CT is arbitrary, though. the regular season is only being measured by rpi... if i had the game history i could put together a ranking approximation that is better than the WIS rankings or rpi and then use that. but because I am only using rpi, i really don't think the quality of the regular season rating is that good. it is so easy to manipulate rpi. you can't really manipulate the CT... also, promises go out the window, and regular season experiments (which also hurt rpi) should be over. the CT is the best effort of teams, usually, in preparation for the NT.

it seems nobody agrees with me, so i will leave the CT out, but honestly i think it should be a small part, because it is less volatile than the NT and more meaningful than the regular season (not more important, but less influenced by factors outside the quality of the team, IMO). it was going to be the smallest component in my original design, but not negligible. i still feel a team who is in the top 5 by rpi and wins a tough CT but gets a bad rap early in the NT gets screwed in the rankings, and i think that would alleviate the issue a bit. also teams in tough conferences tend to get hurt slightly in rpi and significantly in seeding, so including the CT would offset those issues. but, i have given up on including the CT. i actually might have lost the rankings code when my computer blew up last week but i don't think so... keeping my fingers crossed.

bump. updated a bunch of stuff. might do the rest later/tomorrow. also will probably run a bonus monies list to see what the most all time bonus monies were :)

Thanks for the update. I'm happy to be in, with little argument, the 2 best d3 conferences-- Naismith CAC and Wooden Upstate. and i'm not alone...

this is great stuff, thanks

I knew Capital in Naismith was good but I didn't realize it was the best DIII conference across all worlds.  This puts things in perspective.

Good job, billy!

something amazing- i appear on one of those lists.  Of course since it was 30 seasons ago in crum, can we say the game has passed me by?     

bump, for people who missed it a couple weeks ago when i updated it...

updated with data from a couple days ago. i will be posting the conf dynasty lists and all time single school dynasty lists over the next few days. i figured i would spread them out a bit for a change.

bump, for those who haven't visited the forums in the past few days...

thanks as always for doing this. Have you given up the weighted lists?

also, did the old conference lists include weighting for world population?

Posted by wronoj on 1/3/2011 2:21:00 PM (view original):
thanks as always for doing this. Have you given up the weighted lists?

also, did the old conference lists include weighting for world population?

by weighted lists, you mean the ones that weight recent years more? i think i should probably change my lingo a bit, it is sort of confusing. i weight ALL lists, except the streaks (like most consecutive NT performances) by world strength. i feel this is a much more fair assessment than having no equalizer - how can a d3 word under 100 people compare to the great d3 worlds with 200 coaches, many of whom have been at their school for a long time?

so when i say weighted on these current dynasty lists, it is actually something else - weighting the recent years more, like jobs and prestige do. a lot of coaches seemed to like this better, which is why i did it at all, but i personally think the best team over a period should be objective and not favor the teams who did better at the end or the beginning or anything else. so i pretty much have stopped with those weighted lists, i think i only did it once. i should probably just drop it from the thread title and the link in this index thread... 

gotcha. that explains what I was looking at... as for the weighting based on recent-ness, I think it makes sense for a "current dynasty" list to have weighting for more recent play counting more, but not for an all-time list. Sort of like saying "who has the best program right now?" vs "who had the best 10-year run?" if you catch my drift.

Either way, thanks for doing these. Fun reading.