Any requests for new features to add to the site? Enhancements to the graph? Enhancements to the power rankings? What’s the next sport that should be added to the mix?

Here’s the list of things I’m considering:

- Prettier graphs – I should be able to get anti-aliased graphs back into the picture.
- Interactive functionality. This is a couple of steps down the road, but it’ll be really cool. I’ve got lots of ideas down this route.
- Website redesign. (Inquire within.)

I have to figure out how to go easily between the graph and the comments, so I can keep an eye on what you are talking about. For now, my solution is to open two separate browsers and enter your site in each one, keeping one on the graph and the other on the text.

I also have to figure out how to see all of the graph at the same time. It is too long for my 17″ moniter and I don’t want to reconfigure the computer just for that. Reduced graphics in the graph might help here.

I constrained the height of the graph another inch this week… hopefully that’ll help.

NHL would be a cool addition, but I have a feeling it would be hard to keep up with, since there are NHL games just about every single night ðŸ™‚

I like the graphs, but it would be neat if there was an option to view some of the messier arrows that you currently hide. For example, to be able to see the redundant paths in another color, and the arrows removed as beatloops put back as dotted lines, for example.

Including those would make things messy, I know, but having the option to see them would make it easier to tell what sort of outcome a particular game could have on the tree.

I wish the graphs were synced up a bit with your power rankings.

For example, if you look at the most recent graph, New England could either be on the second row (where it is now), or on the third row. Either way work make a clean graph. In cases like these, your graphing software always chooses the most “compact” form, but I think it would make more visual sense for New England to be on the same level as Pittsburgh and Washington.

Similarly, there’s nothing stopping you from moving Houston down near the bottom row. In cases where it will not make the graphy messy, I think you should choose rows tied to your power rankings. It won’t be perfect, but it should make for a more intuitive and meaningful graph.

To extend the previous suggestion, why not attempt to tie the graph explicitly to the power rankings? You could add a vertical scale (0-100) to the graph, and a team’s position on the y-axis would directly correspond to its BeatPower.

Or the graph could just contain shaded regions that correspond to the power rankings — maybe 80-100, 60-80, 40-60, etc.?

In an interactive graph, the individual teams’ BeatPower numbers could display on or near their icons and be toggled on or off.

Syncing the graph more with the power rankings is a good idea. The only problem is that while the beatpath graph itself is pretty stable, the power rankings change here and there as I tinker with the algorithm. So I like being able to see the beatpath graph in its natural state so you can kind of see where it begins. But what I can do is add the current week’s power ranking as a number right in the team’s icon. I’ll experiment with this soon. I also need to add each team’s win/loss record to the power rankings; someone else suggested that earlier.

How do you account for season sweeps in division match ups that occur within a beatloop?

20 of the beatloops listed involve division matchups, and some have already been decided (DAL, PHI; SEA, STL). It looks like beating a division rival twice doesn’t break a beatloop involving a team outside the division that only plays one game against the swept rival, is that true?

Whoops, didn’t realize I hadn’t answered this.

If A=>B=>C=>A, and A=>B again, then the A=>B beatpath will show up. This was actually a bug earlier in the season (before teams had played each other twice), and the beatpath wouldn’t have shown up – but I fixed it in time for the rematches to start.