Quote:
Originally Posted by GGCO
Maybe a good question to ask is why? Currently the only things we are missing are stats from previous years (which I don't think many people use anyways) and videos (which are a priority right now).
|
The quotes below basically sum up my answer to your question. I use TBA's historical data all the time - whether its to look at a team's recent trends, to find a particularly awesome match from many years ago, or to just gather ideas and learn from teams of the past. I'm sure that, in the last two years, the majority of teams looked back to match video from 2007 and 2006 respectively to gain insight on the current year's game. That's the real beauty of TBA's huge archives.
Take a step back and look at the track record/competing standard argument from a different point of view. TBA has been around for a really, really long time (I don't even know when it was founded, but I do know that it's long before my time). They're established, I know I can rely on them and their server for anything I have my website throw at them. Now, TFA enters the scene. To me, it just seems a little bit redundant - why spend so much of your time writing a similar website to an already established one? Because face it, there are a ton of similarities between TFA and TBA. What if you, instead of spending lots of time writing portions of code that do exactly the same thing, you spent that time improving the existing codebase? Your site has a lot of cool features, and some ideas that I like, but I feel there's too much overlap between the two.
But hey, feel free to build an awesome site and convert me. You'll just have to establish your own niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwfoss
I disagree, i'd like to look at a teams performance over time. It can show you their consistency and if they are trending up or down as well.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday
I'll tell you what TBA has that you don't have yet: a proven record.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me
That's part of his point... he's arguing against the merit of having multiple competing standards, when there is already one that is both well established and open source.
|