Hockey pet peeve: "when a teammate tips a puck in on you, which is exactly how my first collegiate goal against happened. Thanks, Copper."
- Member for
- 3 years 33 weeks
|25 weeks 2 days ago||More like 0.1%||
More like 0.1% or 0.2% if you want probability of "at least 7 of 8".
THE NUMBERS HURT
|27 weeks 6 days ago||Oh wow||
Haven't heard that name in a while
|47 weeks 1 day ago||17-14 Blue||
Beat those Fig Things!
|48 weeks 16 hours ago||24 - 9 Blue||
|1 year 29 weeks ago||In the words of Gus Johnson...||
|1 year 40 weeks ago||Mich 35 Neb 14||
|1 year 41 weeks ago||24-21 Michigan||
298 rushing yards.
|2 years 17 weeks ago||Closer to Boulder?||
Conor O'Neil's in Boulder is a much more low key version of Lodo's experience. Much better food too!
1922 13th Street, Boulder, CO
|3 years 10 weeks ago||"the turnover margin they||
"the turnover margin they enjoy one year has virtually zero predictive value for the turnover margin they will enjoy the next year. That means that on average, teams with substantially positive margins will see major decline in margin the next year, and teams with substantially negative margins will see major improvement the next year."
This is just plain wrong. If there was no predictive value for year over year turnover margin, then how can we predict major declines or improvement for teams with substantial margins? That would imply a high negative correlation. No correlation (or low as is 12%) means that it is random and unpredictable.