Beting and ranking are not the same thing. Betting odds/lines are set by betting houses in an attempt to entice the public to bet an equal amount on each team. That assures the betting house makes money with the 11-10 vig on each bet. Therefore, the lines/odds are based on public perception of each team, not the actual chances one team or another has to win the game. Rankings are subjective listings of teams in order of best to worst (polls) or a list of best to worst based on some formula.coda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:41 amBetting and ranking are essentially the same thing. Vegas has some of the best models out there. Not the semantics of good. Its about relative performance. Generally speaking it takes a better performance to take the #1 team to OT and lose, than to take the #20 to team to OT and win. I dont think that is controversial statement. It is just logical. (we can come up with injuries and conditions that can mitigate that, but it holds true on the majority of games)rolldodge wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:16 amRead again. I answered your scenario as it relates to this conversation. I'm not a betting person. Betting wouldn't exist if it wasn't easy to lose.coda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:07 amIt does not mean the loss was good. It simply judges the performance of both teams on that day. Based on your refusal to answer the scenario, I am guessing you agree.rolldodge wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:00 amStrawman? Your scenario. One team lost, the other team won. You said the team that lost is better than the team that won. How is that not using a loss as a positive?coda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:58 amNo, i did not. I stated it is a data point for performance. This is you throwing up a strawman fallacy. If you you just answered my original question, I doubt we would still be discussing thisrolldodge wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:36 amYour question is irrelevant because we are talking about ranking teams in a poll, not gambling. If I had to rank those two teams in your scenario, and I had no other data, I would rank team B above team A.coda wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:21 amfigured you wouldnt answer the question. Team like Quinnipiac is not playing UVA or ND to 1 goal, most the top 20 isnt going to play either to a goal. Nobody has said losses were a positive, merely that you need to judge every performance for what it was. Its impressive to take a top 3 team in the country to OT. It gives you a glimpse to the ceiling of the team. Beating a middle of the pack team in OT, doesnt tell you much. Beating them by 10 actually may give you some insight. MOV is important.rolldodge wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 11:44 pmFirst, its never as simple as evaluating one game versus one other when making a poll.coda wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 9:56 pmSimple view. Try answering this scenario.
Team A loses to ND in OT
Team B beats BU in OT..
Team A plays Team B next week. what’s your line?
Do you really think Team A is worse than Team B?
Second, as a rough measure, any team in the top 30 (lets use RPI despite its flaws) is capable of losing by 1 to any team in the top 10 on a given game day.
Third, good teams find a way to still win despite a bad day or extenuating circumstances. And beating a team in the top 20 (BU) on any given day is not easy for any team.
Losses can never be a positive. They can only be more or less of a negative. Given other data points, I might not take anything away from a team for losing to ND in OT, but it wouldn't add to their resume. They need to prove themselves through wins.
Team like Quinnipiac is not playing UVA or ND to 1 goal, most the top 20 isn't going to play either to a goal.
This is good-ole boys logic, that sets certain teams apart based on history and tradition and not results. We can't know how Quinnipiac will do until they play those teams. 1-7 Brown lost to then #3 Maryland by 1. Unranked Colgate beat Penn State. Unranked Georgtown beat Notre Dame. Top 20 Penn beat Duke.
You did, in your scenario.Nobody has said losses were a positive
Losses are not irrelevant. They are useful to evaluate after you evaluate the strength of wins. But losses should be evaluated against another teams losses. Never against another teams wins, IMO.
And yes, you are judging the performance of both teams on that day. And you are judging the loss as better than the win. Are we now talking about the semantics of "good"?
Your advocacy of giving credit for good losses over wins is the system that lax used until recently that gave an unfair advantage when awarding bids and seedings to ACC teams and Hopkins. Under that system, you could almost predict bids based on the schedule. I won't list them here, but it resulted in numerous undeserved bids and some absurd seeding in the 2000s and early to mid 2010s. It was thankfully and deservedly done away with a few years ago. I know many ACC and B10 fan boys want to go back to this, but I don't see it happening.