If you have feedback on this new set of rankings, which took some significant time by Kevin, please post here.  You can start with: "Thank you Kevin, you are awesome".  :-)

Thank you Kevin, you are awesome!

I wanted to post a couple of examples as we continue to learn more on usage here.  

I've chosen two teams whose coaches are often (in their own minds;  and occasionally in reality) victimized by Olmec: Antioch and Dallas.  :-)

Both teams are 3-3 with Rob in the lead in the rankings:

Is it a conspiracy that Olmec likes Rob more than Craig?  Of course it is.  But let's get to the facts...

The red highlighting identifies losses.  So Mr. Bucknall has two "quality" losses to Columbia (Quad I) and St. Charles (Quad II) while they also have a 'bad' loss to Portland (Quad IV).

At the same time, CB has two Quad III wins and one Quad IV one.

Meanwhile noted (and somehow still a) Mets fan Mr. Rob Peterson's losses are one each for Quad I, II, and III.  His two key wins though are against Quad I and II teams (Columbia and San Jose).

So based on better wins mostly (especially Columbia) Rob gets the nod and the better ranking (and rightly so).

We'll have a similar article on ELO soon and at that point we can talk about why Dallas is better than Antioch perhaps?  ;-)

One thing I love about this ranking system is that the points you won/lost are not set in stone. If Columbia drop to quad Ii (possible with my squad) then everyone who has played us so far will lose 1 point.

I am perfectly fine with Olmec running roughshod over Rob, but I will not tolerate any Mets slander.

Seriously, though, I think using NET rankings is fun. As some coaches will already know, the NCAA uses the NET rankings as one of its data inputs for deciding who qualifies for the NCAA Tournament and how qualified teams will be seeded. Are there any plans to do something like that (or otherwise) with our NET rankings, or will this just be for fun/bragging rights?

Great stuff - this looks really complex on first glance for someone like me who's not good with detail but actually feels really clear and understandable.

So - thank you Kevin, this is awesome! In all, seriousness, having read some of your United analysis, you are officially my new hero. ????

Those ???? were an emoji when they left my iPad

Jason: In terms of using NET, for example, for National Championship qualification for our league...

We haven't talked about that yet.  I've made a note on my to do list to raise it again at some point (or feel free to).  For me, I'd like to see some more data like this year and the next to see if we can get a comfort level on if that would be a good approach. 

Roger: Yes, the forms don't handle all the emojis well.  Its something I work on in the background for a couple of hours periodically but haven't yet developed a solution.  

No problem Al, just conscious it made my (genuine) praise for Kevin look a tad sarcastic 

FWIW, Allan, at present I think it would be just as much fun to use NET only for banter and/or a rough gauge for where we each stand. Looking forward to the discussion of how else we might use it,  though.  

I've gotten some feedback that is really appreciated so far.  Working on NET v2.0 this season.  Ideas that have been floated include removing the posted/ranking negative #s, eliminating ties through a tiebreaker system, working out what it might look like to add bonus points for straight-set wins and mitigating lost points for a 4- or especially 5-set loss.

Ideas received yet not in the queue to implement in the next version: using "best hat" as a tie breaker; bonus points for playing T7 against Dallas (not saying who suggested that one).

Keep the comments and suggested improvements or meaningful criticisms coming!  We'll always be looking to improve the system and make these more fun to review and use to boast or roast as appropriate.

Clearly biased.

Against Dallas.

Nobody loves us.

Although well done for the mountain of work Kevin....SPOILT BY THE T7 THINGY ABOVE.....yes I was shouting