Page 1 of 2
PS2 vs. QRF
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:58 am
by Jim9000
Anybody see the QRF rankings on minnesota-scores.net
Personally, I think they are a bit off (putting it kindly). I don't think minnesota-scores.net is a hockey site, it's good for scores, but leave the rankings to the professional like PS2.
So, in summery PS2 wins.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:06 am
by Can't Never Tried
Well I equate it like this.........
PS2 = Elliott
QRF = hswatcher
Does that kind of help
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:08 am
by Govs93
Can't Never Tried wrote:Well I equate it like this.........
PS2 = Elliott
QRF = hswatcher
Does that kind of help
So what you're saying is that there's virtually no difference?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:13 am
by Neutron 14
Govs93 wrote:
So what you're saying is that there's virtually no difference?
Somebody is bitter about something......
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:25 am
by Govs93
Neutron 14 wrote:Govs93 wrote:
So what you're saying is that there's virtually no difference?
Somebody is bitter about something......
Hey, listen... I have made it to the 2nd of the
5 Stages of Grief. Cut me some slack.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:25 am
by Can't Never Tried
Neutron 14 wrote:Govs93 wrote:
So what you're saying is that there's virtually no difference?
Somebody is bitter about something......
Would'nt have anything to do with this now would it????
Re: PS2 vs. QRF
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:46 am
by O-townClown
Jim9000 wrote:So, in summery PS2 wins.
How about in wintery?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:57 pm
by Indians forever
Rankings are nothing, all that matters is who wins the big Dance come March.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:32 pm
by PuckRanger
Indians forever wrote:Rankings are nothing, all that matters is who wins the big Dance come March.
That's why they play them on the ice and not on paper! Thats also why they are called "rankings" and not "results".
If you took 100 "experts" and sat them down individually and had them rank the top 20 in each class, I bet you would get 100 different results, with none duplicating either the QRF of the PS2 system. Everyone has different perceptions and reasoning methods.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:37 pm
by HShockeywatcher
The PS2 uses the previous season's results and therefore always has a number for each team. Then that number and the number of the opponent is used, along with the outcome of the game.
With the QRF, it just uses classes. Beating Moorhead 7-2 is the same as beating North St Paul 7-2.
By the end of the season, both are generally right on.
Just like the BCS, NBA power rankings, etc, nothing is perfect. They all use their own criteria and are all "right" for what they use.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:41 pm
by EREmpireStrikesBack
HShockeywatcher wrote:The PS2 uses the previous season's results and therefore always has a number for each team. Then that number and the number of the opponent is used, along with the outcome of the game.
With the QRF, it just uses classes. Beating Moorhead 7-2 is the same as beating North St Paul 7-2.
By the end of the season, both are generally right on.
Just like the BCS, NBA power rankings, etc, nothing is perfect. They all use their own criteria and are all "right" for what they use.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:56 pm
by packerboy
Here is the only guy that I trust. The Dreamer himself:
Ah, HAL, open the pod bay doors......HAL
post 9494
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:16 pm
by boblee
QRF works very good for the girls I know.
Re: post 9494
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:18 pm
by EREmpireStrikesBack
boblee wrote:QRF works very good for the girls I know.
So does that mean that a manly man like you can't use it?
post 9495
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:24 pm
by boblee
EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:boblee wrote:QRF works very good for the girls I know.
So does that mean that a manly man like you can't use it?
I should rephrase that. The girls HS hockey QRF rankings are very accurate.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:27 am
by HShockeywatcher
Still wondering what I "have got" wrong...
uh oh
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:44 am
by hawkfan70
HShockeywatcher wrote:Still wondering what I "have got" wrong...
Re: uh oh
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:52 am
by Neutron 14
hawkfan70 wrote:HShockeywatcher wrote:Still wondering what I "have got" wrong...
Perfect Hawk!
Re: uh oh
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:30 pm
by EREmpireStrikesBack
Neutron 14 wrote:hawkfan70 wrote:HShockeywatcher wrote:Still wondering what I "have got" wrong...
Perfect Hawk!
Man I've missed him...
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:02 pm
by HShockeywatcher
Still can't back up what I "have got" wrong ER?
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:13 pm
by EREmpireStrikesBack
HShockeywatcher wrote:Still can't back up what I "have got" wrong ER?
You aren't worth my time.
Or anyone's for that matter.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:22 pm
by HShockeywatcher
Really? Well I'm worth enough that you'd reply to my message at 8:15 on a Friday night.
While you were "not wasting your time on me" responding in this thread three times and responding to my PMs saying you're not going to waste your time responding to me you could have spent less time on one response explaining yourself...
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:33 pm
by EREmpireStrikesBack
HShockeywatcher wrote:Really? Well I'm worth enough that you'd reply to my message at 8:15 on a Friday night.
While you were "not wasting your time on me" responding in this thread three times and responding to my PMs saying you're not going to waste your time responding to me you could have spent less time on one response explaining yourself...
Damn. You got me there. What was the topic again? You are really good at getting off of it...
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:55 am
by hawkfan70
EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:HShockeywatcher wrote:Really? Well I'm worth enough that you'd reply to my message at 8:15 on a Friday night.
While you were "not wasting your time on me" responding in this thread three times and responding to my PMS saying you're not going to waste your time responding to me you could have spent less time on one response explaining yourself...
Damn. You got me there. What was the topic again? You are really good at getting off...
you 2 need to get a room
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:57 am
by Can't Never Tried
hawkfan70 wrote:EREmpireStrikesBack wrote:HShockeywatcher wrote:Really? Well I'm worth enough that you'd reply to my message at 8:15 on a Friday night.
While you were "not wasting your time on me" responding in this thread three times and responding to my PMS saying you're not going to waste your time responding to me you could have spent less time on one response explaining yourself...
Damn. You got me there. What was the topic again? You are really good at getting off...
you 2 need to get a room
No........ one of em just needs to go >>
