To repeat...ideally, we would use PS2 as well, which would let us give great A teams more weight than the proxy would allow for, and bad A teams less weight than it allows for. But the data simply does not exist to do that.HShockeywatcher wrote:
1. Without opinions of public/private brought up, a A program who wins the state title is a worse program than one that won the AA title? (this question has been answered by Lee)
2. Why even distinguish A/AA? Why not simply distinguish specific teams?
-I gave an example of a year where the A champ and AA champ were very close in who they played. Why not, in that year, treat them very similarly?
-On the same note, if a team gets paired up with teams from 3A and 6A in the first two rounds, for example, are they then a worse team because of who they were paired up with?
1. "top team" is broad...sorry for asking a question.
2. I'm not cherry picking anything. Again, not only did I not want to take up any more space than I did, but I don't have the time to analyze all the details of every year. The A/AA split is only 15 years old (including this year). I will give you the 3 year stretch of 98-99, 99-00, and 00-01, but outside of those three years there has been at least one A team toward the top of the rankings and generally multiple others around the top. Also, many of the AA teams are from similar sections and only one makes state, when you take out those who don't make state it also looks different. If you are only using "results from MSHSL-sanctioned state tournaments" in 15 years there won't be thousands of comparisons, as you say.
I didn't know I was arguing with anyone. I gave my opinion, you said I didn't post specifics, so I did. That's not an argument, nor will I get into one. You're the one making the list, the list which I have complimented, I feel the weight is a bit low (and should be used on a case by case basis, not on a whole), but that is all up to you to decide, as it's your list. I gave my opinion, that's all.
Of course using the .36 proxy is not perfect, but it is a decent average. It may undercut the quality of a team like St. Thomas, but it also makes the 3A champ, who would never have a prayer of winning just about any other section, look a lot better. (Strictly using PS2, Class A teams would have won their respective AA sections 9-10% of the time during the years the model covers. That makes .36 look generous.) And the same thing is happening to AA teams. AA teams since the 2-class split get less credit for a title than they did beforehand, and don't look any better in the years that the AA field is stronger, or vice versa. The approach is imperfect, but it is consistent. It'd be great if we could weigh for regular season records and section strength in every season. We can't. We could change the rules the instant PS2 comes into play, but would that be fair to teams that were around before it? No. Hence the value of consistency.
And I am going to argue with your definition of an argument.
You say you are prompting debate, and in debates one makes "arguments"--through reasoning, examples, etc.--to defend one's points. This is not a bad thing; it's how they work.
