- Member for
- 4 years 2 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|20 weeks 2 days ago||From the article||
> Rogers Redding, national coordinator for NCAA football officiating, says referees are human but unfailingly scrupulous. “I can unequivocally say that I have never seen any sign of bias on the part of officials at any level,” says Redding, who officiated NCAA football for 18 years.
He has "never seen any sign of bias" in 18 years. That is impossible.
If you can't even acknowledge a problem sometimes occurs, how would it ever get fixed?
|22 weeks 4 days ago||Seems to be a lot of||
Seems to be a lot of judgement being passed on Wormley on the twitter thread. The video doesn't show what happened to cause the collision, maybe that person came flying out of no-where. Rushing the field is often chaotic
|32 weeks 1 day ago||2-0 Michigan||
I gave up trying to find a shutout score that wasn't taken already
|1 year 12 weeks ago||Sorry||
Debate is no allowed on here, only group think and circle jerks.
|1 year 19 weeks ago||Early Enrollment||
I guess I'm a bit ignorant. Can anyone explain:
1. Why would early enrollment be so important to a player?
2. Why would a university deny early enrollment?
Thanks in advance
|1 year 19 weeks ago||The weather conditions can be||
The weather conditions can be different at different airports, particularly for fog.
|1 year 20 weeks ago||Maryland has the disadvantage||
Maryland has the disadvantage of being hated by the ACC
|1 year 21 weeks ago||Patreon?||
Has Brian considered joining Patreon? I support a couple websites on there
|1 year 21 weeks ago||AWS?||
I've been looking into AWS lately to figure out if that'd work for hosting a server I need - is there a reason (that you can share) that you didn't go that route? I thought AWS was designed to handle load spikes, but on the other hand I thought they only billed you for CPU time instead of number of "active instances"
|1 year 21 weeks ago||The ref that threw the flag||
The ref that threw the flag was about 3 feet from the play, directly in front of him, so maybe he had a better view than us /s
|1 year 21 weeks ago||We're playing with house||
We're playing with house money now!
|1 year 22 weeks ago||Wow||
I'm sure Rudock would appreciate the award, even if you guys done like Manning or whatever
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Yeah!||
Yeah! Spell the mispelling correctly!
|1 year 23 weeks ago||What's true is heavily||
What's true is heavily influenced by the public's opinion - I guess now is the time to start lobbying for ND to be treated like an ACC member.
If ND's SoS is so great, maybe they should take ND over Clemson
|1 year 23 weeks ago||Notre Dame is ACC||
Notre Dame is an ACC team. They're ACC for every other sport and they play half of their season against the ACC. The committee won't send both an ACC team and Notre Dame, that's ridiculous
Maybe in an 8-team playoff both could go, but not in a 4-team playoff.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||ND is basically part of the||
Exactly, ND is basically part of the ACC and they'd already be sending Clemson as conference champion. They shouldn't be sending both Clemson and ND, especialy since ND lost to Clemson - that's just rewarding ND's shenanigans.
|1 year 23 weeks ago||based on the holding and pass||
based on the holding and pass interference calls, yes
|1 year 24 weeks ago||Clearly more ACC favoritism||
Clearly more ACC favoritism for Duke. The refs made a dozen erroneous calls against Miami, none of which has been mentioned by the ACC. They had a historic 27 penalties against Miami. The ACC has been a Duke/UNC conference for a while now - now they want it to be that way in football as well as basketball
|1 year 25 weeks ago||The CFP wants to avoid||
The CFP wants to avoid controversies, I doubt they would skip taking a conference champion but still take a team from that same conference.
|1 year 25 weeks ago||35-0 Michigan||
|1 year 25 weeks ago||It's time to chill out||
It's time to chill out - it's a funny article if you can learn to relax a bit
|1 year 26 weeks ago||The worst part about losing||
The worst part about losing the game was (or has been) everyone on this board throwing their perpetual hissy fit and telling everyone else to not post anything relevant
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Misclick||
It was a misclick (j/k)
I actually saw the UT Austin version of this at the UT Austin version of M-Den recently and we were disappointed that there was no Michigan equivalent. It must have just come out in the last couple days
|1 year 26 weeks ago||The box says that they're||
The box says that they're "Compatible with Major Brands"
|1 year 26 weeks ago||My point||
My point is that if UM recognized the situation properly, they would have blocked in a way to create more time or changd the play. There was no reason to having anyone go down field.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Random||
People don't know what a series of coin flips usually looks like. 10 coin flips in a row is usually not going to be 5-5 or even 6-4. There are often long streaks of one side or the other.
You can play with a 50 coin flip here:
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Whoops||
My only complaint has been about adding up the individual results and getting "23.58 points", which I guess I didn't say explicitly. I agree with how the plays are calculated individually.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Not to be a pain in the||
Not to be a pain in the ass... I appreciate the article and its analysis and whatnot
From my understanding, in this analysis you're looking at the effect of the expected value of a particular drive. So before the event you have some vector, e.g., (1% safety, 10% punt, 5% downs, 50% touchdown, 34% field goal) and then after the event you have some other vector (0% safety, 5% punt, 2% downs, 80% touchdown, 13% field goal). For easier digestion, this gets multiplied by the change in score from each event (-2, 0, 0, 7, 3) and summed so that we are left with a single number. In this sense, this analysis is done on a drive-by-drive basis.
So while I agree that on a philsophical level, as soon as one event in the entire game changes, everything else in the game will also be affected through the butterfly effect, my point is that the expected value of a given drive cannot exceed 7 points. If the expected value of an entire drive cannot exceed 7 points, then the cumulative *changes* in expected value for a given drive also cannot exceed 7 points.
I made some attempt to address that by multiplying the probability of later events by the inverse-probability of earlier events, but I agree that's not perfect.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||Sorry. All I meant was that||
Sorry. All I meant was that if two of the penalties analyzed in this article are from the same drive, a change of one penalty would affect the other, i.e., they are not independent.
So let's say you have penalty A and penalty B where penalty A is a missed hold call on 3nd down and penalty B is a phantom pass interference call on the next set of downs. In this article the change in expected points is calculated as if these are independent, so the change in value is (VA*PA + VB*PB) where VA = Value(A) and PA=Probability(A).
What I'm saying is if these two penaltys are from the same drive, then Penalty B would only have an effect if Penalty A was not called correctly. So the formula should be (VA*PA+VB*PB*(1-VA)). So each later contribution is dampened by the earlier penalties.
|1 year 26 weeks ago||I know you're multiplying by||
I know you're multiplying by probability factors to get expected points, but you still may have a double-counting issue if two fouls came from the same drive