Nebraska Wins The Title That Really Matters

[Dark Energy]

5 hours ago, RockLobster said:

Obviously, they don't.

That was already discussed... start reading on the 1st page, 4th post from the bottom.

(Note - it does help to read and understand what's already been posted before asking what's already been answered.

Well then I ask you to reread your posts and understand that you, on multiple occasions implied they were the same.  You did this by replying to someone who, was talking about rankings and predictions, using a seeding example.  
 

And on another occasion providing points with the approach of using ‘seeding / rankings’ as a way of saying point is same for both.  And multiple times slipping back and forth.

The case you are trying to make is wobbly enough …. you should work to be more consistent in terms and terminology.

[RockLobster]

17 hours ago, Dark Energy said:

Well then I ask you to reread your posts and understand that you, on multiple occasions implied they were the same.  You did this by replying to someone who, was talking about rankings and predictions, using a seeding example.  
 

And on another occasion providing points with the approach of using ‘seeding / rankings’ as a way of saying point is same for both.  And multiple times slipping back and forth.

The case you are trying to make is wobbly enough …. you should work to be more consistent in terms and terminology.

I've typed rankings/seedings enough times that, after a while, it seemed that most folks would get it and I tired of it.

The argument we find ourselves in is between rankings/seedings being predictions or not.

You are right. I agree with you. Rankings and seedings are different. But, in terms of the discussion we are currently having - they get lumped together. (Per the thread I pointed you to earlier, and the discussion since then.)

I'll be using the term "rankings" going forward. I apologize, in advance, if that offends your terminology sensitivity.

[RockLobster]

18 hours ago, maligned said:

I think it's a semantics thing. Are traditional rankings predictive of future winners? Certainly, to a degree. They're much more accurately predictive than a coin flip. But is being predictive their purpose? No. Predictive ratings use every piece of data available with no constraints. But traditional rankings are constrained by certain win/loss reward conventions expected by the public. Example: predictive ratings know all of Gable Steveson's history and would rate him above Hendrickson if the season continued because he would be a significant favorite in a rematch. Traditional rankings are constrained to this seasons wins and losses only and would rank Hendrickson ahead of Gable until a new win/loss event happens that is counter to the ranking. In that sense, rankings aren't designed to be predictive, but reward-based above all else. 

I think it may well be a semantics thing, as well.

I never, at any point, said that the rankings (and yes, seedings) were predictions of the Vegas sort.

If you read back, you'll find that what I consistently said was they were "essentially predictions".

This year, Starocci was ranked #1, Keck #2, Max #3, Plott #4. They were seeded in the same order.

There was some consternation among fans who thought it should have been something they preferred. Meh.

After it was all said and done, they finished in that exact same order.

Turns out - at least at 184 - the rankings and seedings were 100% accurate predictions of the outcome.

This is exactly the goal of the rankings/seedings, even if it is not always achieved.

Why?

• The brackets would be garbage is top wrestlers met each other in early rounds
• If top wrestlers lost early to other top wrestlers, it would be unfair to them.
• If top wrestlers lost early to other top wrestlers, it would be unfair to fans.
• The brackets need to ensure top wrestlers are separated enough to provide fair quality competition.
• A well seeded bracket provides that level of fairness.

Here's the kicker. It would be impossible to provide a well seeded bracket without using rankings (and thus, seedings) to essentially predict the results of matches.

Starocci, Keck, Max, and Plott were all "predicted" to win all of their matches before the quarters at 184 by the bracket.

Some get their panties in a bunch over using the word "prediction" here. But it is used appropriately.

Seems you're right. It is a semantics thing.

[Dark Energy]

Others have said this but I’ll jump on.  I’d agree that rankings have predictive power.  If you looked at predictions (call these predictive rankings) against rankings, there would often be very good correlation.  

But regular rankings are usually not 100% correlated to predictive rankings.  They are different.