Hey Silver Maple, on another thread didn't you tell me to drop it.
While none of my questions regarding Mike's fine work are meant to be taken as a personal affront, his Adjusted Sensitivity Rating on this issue is something like a .9643, which is far greater than it was a year ago when he was more patient with us numbskulls.
My issue is the notion that a league can improve relative to itself (its own quantitative number can be higher from year to year) but yet fall back in the ratings due to the relative strength of other leagues and be called "better." To me, that makes the league worse - maybe because I wasn't a math guy.
Teams do not exist in a vacuum, they exist to compete against other teams. So in my linear brain, if the Ivy League is ranked 21st one year and 26th a few years later, when they're ranked 26th, the League is not as good as it was when it was rankled 21st. I can see how one can make the argument that is not the case (although it's a much more logical argument to make with individual teams whose strength of schedules can change drastically) but over the course of an entire league schedule I would think enough scheduling anomalies would even themselves out that the league ranking would be a truer representation. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I'm okay with being ignorant in some areas.