College Football Confidential: ESPN asks the tough questions
ESPN polled players anonymously, the results can be found here:
They got a little crazy with their graphs (and questions).
Clarification: they are not illegal. They are against NCAA rules. Big difference.
August 8th, 2013 at 10:06 AM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 11:19 AM ^
Also, I should really learn how to not post on MGoBlog at work. And to proofread.
realize that in some cases, the graphs just did not do a good job representing the data...
Look at the recruiting violation question. I mean 42% is greater that 40%, right? And two 9% should be the same size...
ESPN sucks at graphs. Good questions though.
Look at the recruiting violation graphic, not the playoff question.
Check out the second bar graph they show. 33% is half of 67%, not like 1/5.
"SEC player on hiding concussions
"I've lied about concussions. It's pretty easy to get away with it -- you just stay away from the team doctors.""
....if they ($EC players) lie about their own personal health (which im sure players do everywhere, but none to a reporter), imagine how much they lie about taking money, other benefits, PED's, etc....cough-treadwell-cough...the circle of cheating continues in the souf
Just because they chose that quote from an SEC player doesn't really support your argument that this is an SEC thing. 49% of players says they think they have a teammate taking PEDs; over 90% see at least a handful of NCAA rule violations a year; 33% have lied about a concussion. Those are problems a lot broader than the SEC.
ohio for me. I really want to beat their asses on the field.
The 63-37 split on the question about whether or not your current coach was the coach when the school first offer seems to add to the evidence that the turnover rate for coaches is perhaps in danger of becoming fairly ridiculous. I believe there was an article either at ESPN or some other outlet perhaps a year or two ago which pegged the turnover rate slightly over 20% on average now. With 30 positions changing hands this past offseason in Division I, that would put it at nearly 25% just for that cycle.
i don't understand not wearing a cup.
I never did. They are annoying. Only sports I could see requiring a cup would be baseball and hockey.
August 8th, 2013 at 10:05 AM ^
Football? Uhhhh not the same risk.
August 8th, 2013 at 12:43 PM ^
make a cup that's easier to wear? They've made strides in the area of bicycle seats, why can't they make a cup that's more comfortable to wear that'll be one the players WANT to wear.
I think I may have found my calling in life. Where's my drawing board?
August 8th, 2013 at 10:21 AM ^
August 8th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^
i think this is the best first comment that anyone has ever made in the history of internet comment boards, perhaps even the history of the world.
welcome
August 8th, 2013 at 11:29 AM ^
Get this guy some points. I don't care if you have to switch servers again!
If so, did you wear a cup? They're beyond uncomfortable to try to wear and play a sport like football.
August 8th, 2013 at 11:48 AM ^
72% said they would rather win the Heisman Trophy than the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm not sure what to think about that one.
in football or baseball. In softball, not necessary. And I believe there have been changes in equipment manufacturing that make cups less cumbersome in movement.
I agree they are annoying as hell and something I wouldn't want to wear every game. However, the risk is greater than the prospect of never experiencing any contact in that vital area, and getting that sickening feeling of dull pain that always results from such an occurrence.
Under national high school rules, players and coaches are required in most sports to tell offiicials before games that their teams are legally and properly equipped, a euphemistic reference to cups. But that is a liability precaution and is about as valid as this ESPN survey which probably involved a small fraction of college football players. If ESPN disclosed the sample size and other information about the survey it might have actual value.
In this case, it's about as valid as a TMZ report.
The rest of the methodology is missing, but ESPN did state that 92 players took part.
" we rounded up 92 college football players in July."
Your point is valid that without the methodology and a bigger sample size the poll is worthless.