re: Alabama Schedule Thread

Why do you think this is so important to you?

quote:

---

Jesus man. They're not skewed. I'm correcting for everything you're throwing at me.

---

You're correcting nothing. Its cute you think you are though.

quote:

---

percentage which negates the amount of games played by the pure basis of what a percentage is?

---

So you're doing all this without understanding the impact number of games played has on winning percentage?

Lulz

quote:

---

There is no rationale for removing losses when calculating winning percentage.

It throws the numbers off when you remove losses. How do you people not grasp that?

---

Because removing those numbers rewards winning. We're talking about a single metric, not a holistic discussion of a team's quality, so building in a method of doing that makes sense. It's easy to demonstrate. Let's say you -- we'll call you "LSU" -- have two games. Game one, LSU plays a 14-1 Bama. The other, LSU plays a 6-6 Vandy. You win one, lose one (doesn't matter which opponent.) So your opponents have a 20-7 record. 20/27 = 74%. Solid, right? So let's go with the formula by removing losses suffered at your hands. One loss (say, to us) brings the new total to 20 wins, 6 losses. 20/26 = .769. 77%. Even better, right?

Now let's say you go undefeated. Your unadjusted total is the same, obviously. 20 wins, 7 losses. 20/27 = 74%. But look...by this metric, an unbeaten LSU that took down Bama and slapped Vandy all over the field looks exactly like an LSU that managed to beat Bama but suffered a crushing upset against Vandy.

So, instead, you remove losses suffered at your hands. 14-1 becomes 14-0. 6-6 becomes 6-5. Total: 20-5. Don't even need to use a calculator to know that 20/25 = 80%. Now your undefeated LSU is rightly rewarded in this metric. Yes, you could go look at LSU's record independently. You should, in fact. But we're discussing LSU's performance relative to other teams, not LSU's performance in itself. So removing that loss is essentially an algorithmic method of reward success without cross-referencing other statistics. Do you follow?

quote:

---

---

That don't make bamer look bad as they oughta!

quote:

---

randomways

---

You're wasting your time. No way any LSU fan will acknowledge Bama's dominance, much less comprehend arithmetic.

quote:

---

Because removing those numbers rewards winning. We're talking about a single metric, not a holistic discussion of a team's quality, so building in a method of doing that makes sense. It's easy to demonstrate. Let's say you -- we'll call you "LSU" -- have two games. Game one, LSU plays a 14-1 Bama. The other, LSU plays a 6-6 Vandy. You win one, lose one (doesn't matter which opponent.) So your opponents have a 20-7 record. 20/27 = 74%. Solid, right? So let's go with the formula by removing losses suffered at your hands. One loss (say, to us) brings the new total to 20 wins, 6 losses. 20/26 = .769. 77%. Even better, right?

Now let's say you go undefeated. Your unadjusted total is the same, obviously. 20 wins, 7 losses. 20/27 = 74%. But look...by this metric, an unbeaten LSU that took down Bama and slapped Vandy all over the field looks exactly like an LSU that managed to beat Bama but suffered a crushing upset against Vandy.

So, instead, you remove losses suffered at your hands. 14-1 becomes 14-0. 6-6 becomes 6-5. Total: 20-5. Don't even need to use a calculator to know that 20/25 = 80%. Now your undefeated LSU is rightly rewarded in this metric. Yes, you could go look at LSU's record independently. You should, in fact. But we're discussing LSU's performance relative to other teams, not LSU's performance in itself. So removing that loss is essentially an algorithmic method of reward success without cross-referencing other statistics. Do you follow?

---

This is why Vandy is Vandy.

The playoff era champions are going to get an AUTOMATIC bump of 3-4% to their winning percentage that yhe BCS era teams don't get because of the extra game against a team with 12 wins, minimum.

Example: Bama's opponents winning percentage prior to the Clemson game was 65%. It was 68% after. There's your 3% jump because of a single game. Going forward, every national champ is going to have a 65%, or better, winning percentage because of the extra games.

You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'm hoping you can now grasp this. There is a clear skew in the numbers because of the extra games. The fact Bama fans don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.

Now, does it take away from anything Bama did this year? No, it doesn't. So all the defensiveness from Bama fans is unwarranted.

quote:

---

So, instead, you remove losses suffered at your hands. 14-1 becomes 14-0. 6-6 becomes 6-5. Total: 20-5. Don't even need to use a calculator to know that 20/25 = 80%. Now your undefeated LSU is rightly rewarded in this metric. Yes, you could go look at LSU's record independently. You should, in fact. But we're discussing LSU's performance relative to other teams, not LSU's performance in itself. So removing that loss is essentially an algorithmic method of reward success without cross-referencing other statistics. Do you follow?

---

I fully understand what removing the losses Suffered at the hands of the championship team does, it makes the opponents winning percentage look better than what it actually is. There's no need to do that as the actual winning percentage is already impressive.

He got called on his bullshite and all the Bama fans ran to his aid because any who don't agree that Bama is the greatest thing in the history of ever, is wrong in their opinion.

Alabama played a tougher season this year than 2011 LSU

Impressive

We should factor in somehow being the team played the most after the opponent's bye week also.