BuzzerBeater Forums

I can't agree with you. Do you have some data which shows how many point for example our U21 (Ceska Rep.) gain for the match against Moldova last Monday? It looks like something around 0, because difference between win against Ireland 28 weeks before and win against Moldova last week is -12.4 points and first round qualification matches are worth 15 points.

should the number of points only go up and up until we have ranking values which are in the millions years from now?

shouldnt a reasonable system self normalize from time to time?

who cares what the exact number is.... if everyones absolute numbers went down, it doesnt matter.. what matters is the relative number. We only include the absolute numbers so that people have a sense of scale in the ranking that reflects that the difference between places is not uniform across the places... i.e. there might be two teams very close to one another at the top, and then a big gap followed by a group of 4 teams. It is the relative gap between those two sets of numbers that is important here, not their absolute value.

Is it possible to redo the display rankings so that number one always has 1,000 points and the rest have the number of points relative to #1?

should the number of points only go up and up until we have ranking values which are in the millions years from now?


who cares what the exact number is.... if everyones absolute numbers went down, it doesnt matter...

It doesn't go up (or better it didn't) - you gain poinsts for a match but loose for the exact same two season ago - so it really goes up only for teams which are getting better.

It matters, because rankings are used for something. And it is legitimate to try to find out what you have to do to get at certain desired rank at the end os season (or better two season cycle). If there were some changes nt managers and u21 managers should be informed at the start of the season. or it could be simply in news, doesn't matter.

Is it possible to redo the display rankings so that number one always has 1,000 points and the rest have the number of points relative to #1?

i guess it would be more difficult to find out what you need to do with a team to get where you want to be (for qulifications purposes), so I guess I would like current more.

It looks like you don't want to accept there should be an bug. And you don't want to check whether there is a bug or not. It's the only think I want you to do.

There is statistic of sum of points for NT teams (the date is date of rankings update)
20.10.2008 18644,2
27.10.2008 18670,8 difference 26,6
3.11.2008 18650,4 difference -20,4
10.11.2008 18625,4 difference -25
17.11.2008 18620,7 difference -4,7
24.11.2008 18595,7difference -25
1.12.2008 18565,5 difference -30,2
8.12.2008 18579,6 difference 14,1
15.12.2008 18628,3 difference 48,7
22.12.2008 18686,7 difference 58,4
29.12.2008 18743,8 difference 57,1
5.1.2009 18794 difference 50,2
12.1.2009 18841difference 47
19.1.2009 18906,6 difference 65,6
26.1.2009 18891,2 difference -15,4
2.2.2009 18872,1 difference -19,1
9.2.2009 18846,2 difference -25,9
16.2.2009 18831,4 difference -14,8
16.3.2009 18866,1 difference 34,7 (difference not for 1 week but 4 weeks)

There is statistic of sum of points for U21 teams (the date is date of rankings update):
9.3.2009 17555,2
16.3.2009 17039,9 difference -515,3
23.3.2009 16519,9 difference -520
older data is not relevant, because it was first 2 seasons of U21, so no older points were losing

20.10.2009 was sum of points 4595, this is time, when I start NT/U21 Rankings analysis. At this time were played 7 round of first groups and 1 round of second group. So average points gained in this weeks is 574,375 and because second groups are worth more, so than I take into account average for followed weeks, which was 706,63, average for fisrt round groups weeks drops to 555,48.

So can you insist on that gaining something around 35-40 points for all teams is correct? I don't think so.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/24/2009 6:31:54 AM

It looks like you totally ignore that there should be an bug. And you don't want to check whether there is a bug or not. It's the only think I want you to do. But you only finds alibi not to have to do anything.

Please watch your tone a bit, remember everyone's here to help you, especially the BBs, there is no need at all to use words like this.

Sorry, for inconvenience, English is not my native language, so some words somebody could feel in another way than me (more sensitively).
But I think my message describe sittuation very exactly. I don't think BB-Forrest message sounds like yours:

remember everyone's here to help you, especially the BBs.

It sounds like:
There surely is not any bug in U21 rankings. And there is no need for me to look about it.

But finally I decided to correct my first message.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/24/2009 6:29:56 AM

It looks like you don't want to accept there should be an bug.

Or you don't want to accept that there is not one after multiple explanations.

What is highly unlikely?