NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

[JDUBBS1280]

And JDUBBS takes a dump in another thread.

And I think 95% of what you say is less than quality. Yet, I manage to go about my business without personally attacking you.

 

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

It doesn't bother me. I just don't understand people's need to quantify greatness.

It's the offseason, and this is a discussion board. People are looking for things to discuss, and in that regard, this thread was a great success. If you disagree with the OP's methodology you could at least say why and propose a better one. If you think the whole endeavor is a waste of time, then why post at all? That is what I find truly hard to understand.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

It's the offseason, and this is a discussion board. People are looking for things to discuss, and in that regard, this thread was a great success. If you disagree with the OP's methodology you could at least say why and propose a better one. If you think the whole endeavor is a waste of time, then why post at all? That is what I find truly hard to understand.

You're right, this is the offseason, and this is a message board. I think my question was a fair one. And the reason I posted the question is because I am genuinely interested in answers to that question.

In your opinion, is there a way to put into a mathmatical formula every factor that makes a program great?

 

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

In your opinion, is there a way to put into a mathmatical formula every factor that makes a program great?

Obviously there's never going to be a perfect formula that pleases everyone. But I get a kick out of these threads anyway, and they always generate good debate. Considering that the OP never claimed his formula was perfect and posted it in order to generate critiques, it just strikes me as dumping on the discussion come in here and declare the whole endeavor a waste.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Obviously there's never going to be a perfect formula that pleases everyone. But I get a kick out of these threads anyway, and they always generate good debate. Considering that the OP never claimed his formula was perfect and posted it in order to generate critiques, it just strikes me as dumping on the discussion come in here and declare the whole endeavor a waste.

Again, just my opinion. I have never claimed to have a monopoly on being right

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

And I think 95% of what you say is less than quality. Yet, I manage to go about my business without personally attacking you.

It's not a personal attack. If I said you were a jerkoff that would be a personal attack, but I would never say that. You can't worry every time someone doesn't genuflect before the M because that becomes a never-ending battle. For instance I think FS23's "Top Teams" ranking severerly underrated the '02 Gophers relative to '01 UND, '06 UW and '04 UND (in fact, those 4 rankings are preposterous when you put the teams' accoplishments side by side) but I think I made one comment, maybe two at the time it came out, said ok and moved on. Not trying to tell you what to do just offering a friendly suggestion.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

It's not a personal attack. If I said you were a jerkoff that would be a personal attack, but I would never say that. You can't worry every time someone doesn't genuflect before the M because that becomes a never-ending battle. For instance I think FS23's "Top Teams" ranking severerly underrated the '02 Gophers relative to '01 UND, '06 UW and '04 UND (in fact, those 4 rankings are preposterous when you put the teams' accoplishments side by side) but I think I made one comment, maybe two at the time it came out, said ok and moved on. Look, no one can tell you what to do, but there have been friendly suggestions based upon the reactions your posts generate. Be proud of the Gophers, but do it without crapping on anyone else's program and leave that crap to fans like willythekid, socalsiouxfan and their ilk.

Ok, you've made my comments in here about the Gophers based on one reply I made to Gurt who was attacking me. Based on whom I was replying to and the nature of how he was treating me, I have no qualms about how I retorted.

The rest of my comments in this thread have had NOTHING to do with the Gophers. I am just trying to understand why people find the need to quantify greatness when, in my opinion, it is a fairly subjective thing.

I think it was a valid question and I have gotten some good answers. I have also gotten a bunch of the same old attacks on my very existence which I am trying to stay above.

So, for the last time, if you don't like what I have to say, please be an adult and respectfully disagree with me, or ignore my posts. You do not have the right to tell me what I can and cannot say.

 

[KnightsOfTheRound]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

Again, just my opinion. I have never claimed to have a monopoly on being right

For the record, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who believes it is possible to exactly quantify greatness with a single perfect formula. But that doesn't mean it isn't fun to try anyway. Maybe that is what bothers me: not that you are asking questions, but you are asking an unnecessary question, since all these formulas are posted with the caveat that they are just one person's opinion.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

For the record, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who believes it is possible to exactly quantify greatness with a single perfect formula. But that doesn't mean it isn't fun to try anyway. Maybe that is what bothers me: not that you are asking questions, but you are asking an unnecessary question, since all these formulas are posted with the caveat that they are just one person's opinion.

Point taken. Thank you for responding nicely.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

You're right, this is the offseason, and this is a message board. I think my question was a fair one. And the reason I posted the question is because I am genuinely interested in answers to that question.

In your opinion, is there a way to put into a mathmatical formula every factor that makes a program great?

Slap Shot was right. You take a dump in every thread. Every thread you post in becomes about the same thing. Everyone is tired of it. If you don't care for the topic being discussed, move along.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Slap Shot was right. You take a dump in every thread. Every thread you post in becomes about the same thing. Everyone is tired of it. If you don't care for the topic being discussed, move along.

If I didn't care about the topic of the thread, I wouldn't post in it. And these threads turn into disasters because i am childishly attacked, and attacked, and attacked whenever I post.

I won't be bullied off the board, and I'm going to honestly speak my mind, so either ignore me if you don't like what I have to say, or get used to threads ending up this way.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

For the record, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who believes it is possible to exactly quantify greatness with a single perfect formula. But that doesn't mean it isn't fun to try anyway. Maybe that is what bothers me: not that you are asking questions, but you are asking an unnecessary question, since all these formulas are posted with the caveat that they are just one person's opinion.

Exactly. I know when I was coming up with my formula I tried to think of all the things that equal greatness. There were some things that one can't objectively measure, but there are other things that you can. I decided to take those things, and pop them into a formula (which is subjective in its weighting). It is far from perfect, but I think it is about the closest to that standard that it can be without bringing in unquantifiable measures.

As for this formula and this measurement, I think it is solid, and does a good job in looking at a team's on-ice accomplishments during the era. I enjoy these sort of pursuits (and I think most of the board does as well). If you don't, I understand that, but certain posters (ahem) spend far too much time in these type of threads to argue, when the fact of the matter is these threads are mostly for fun and discussion, not trying to shove down people's throats who we think is the best.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Exactly. I know when I was coming up with my formula I tried to think of all the things that equal greatness. There were some things that one can't objectively measure, but there are other things that you can. I decided to take those things, and pop them into a formula (which is subjective in its weighting). It is far from perfect, but I think it is about the closest to that standard that it can be without bringing in unquantifiable measures.

As for this formula and this measurement, I think it is solid, and does a good job in looking at a team's on-ice accomplishments during the era. I enjoy these sort of pursuits (and I think most of the board does as well). If you don't, I understand that, but certain posters (ahem) spend far too much time in these type of threads to argue, when the fact of the matter is these threads are mostly for fun and discussion, not trying to shove down people's throats who we think is the best.

I think my questions were pretty fair ones. And had they been answered as nicely as KnightsOfTheRound did, instead of with personal attacks and sarcasm, this side discussion would have been done long ago.

But keep telling yourself I'm the problem

 

[Dirty]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

If I didn't care about the topic of the thread, I wouldn't post in it. And these threads turn into disasters because i am childishly attacked, and attacked, and attacked whenever I post.

I won't be bullied off the board, and I'm going to honestly speak my mind, so either ignore me if you don't like what I have to say, or get used to threads ending up this way.

Perhaps you should take the advice of the sage Homer Simpson when he once said "If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'll just have to stop doing stupid things!" If you stopped saying stupid things people would stop calling you on them.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

Perhaps you should take the advice of the sage Homer Simpson when he once said "If you're going to get mad at me every time I do something stupid, then I guess I'll just have to stop doing stupid things!" If you stopped saying stupid things people would stop calling you on them.

And this post is the epitome of the issue.

 

[Tipsy McStagger]

If I didn't care about the topic of the thread, I wouldn't post in it. And these threads turn into disasters because i am childishly attacked, and attacked, and attacked whenever I post.

No, you don't care for the topic. The topic is ranking programs by accomplishments. You said there are things that can't be quanitified and you don't understand why people try to quantify greatness. So you fundamentally disagree with the purpose of this thread.

 

[Dirty]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

And this post is the epitome of the issue.

Yes, you constantly say stupid things. That is the epitome of the issue. You question the rankings that FS23 and HumRsky
came up with. When people tell you to come up with your own rankings if you have a problem with the ones FS23 and HumRsky did you call them a waste of time. When people tell you to not spend time in the thread if you find the rankings to be a waste of time you act like you're the victim. You provide no constructive criticism in these threads, you just provide criticism. When you are called on this, you complain that everyone is attacking you. Well of course they are, you are calling this thread a stupid waste of time. If you can call this thread a stupid waste of time, why shouldn't others be allowed to call you stupid? How much intelligence does it show when a person calls something a waste of time but keeps talking about it?

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA era Program rankings-accomplishments only

And I think 95% of what you say is less than quality. Yet, I manage to go about my business without personally attacking you.

Awesome! Your personally attack him and deny the need to personally attack him in the same post.

 

[JDUBBS1280]

No, you don't care for the topic. The topic is ranking programs by accomplishments. You said there are things that can't be quanitified and you don't understand why people try to quantify greatness. So you fundamentally disagree with the purpose of this thread.

I think my questions were perfectly acceptable and on topic.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Awesome! Your personally attack him and deny the need to personally attack him in the same post.

Cognitive dissonance.