further adventures in Jed York being unsuited for his position
- Member for
- 5 years 23 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|6 days 13 hours ago||As Einstein once said||
We need to make things as simple as possible but no simpler than that.
The OP is far too simplistic and is misleading.
The reasons why are clearly stated in my post
|6 days 13 hours ago||a hypothetical example illustrates why such data can mislead||
For the past 10, past 20, past 30 and past 40 years years, let's say that team A beats team B in win pct 100 to 0, 65-30, 53-40 and 48-45.
We can conclude that Team A consistently dominates team B over the past 40 years, right?
The actual records used to generate these “cumulative’ results derive from the following results for each decade:
Years 1-10 A > B 100-0 %
Years 11-20 B >A 60-30%
Years 21-30 B >A 60- 30%
Years 31-40 B >A 60-30%
Thus Team B doubled the win pct over team A for 30 of the 40 years. Team B was the best except for one decade which clearly was an outlier.
Yet because that difference was large. occurred first, and was the only decade that was repeatedly counted in ALL of the OPs cumululative 10, 20 30 and 40 year periods, it appeared that team A dominated team B for all 40 years.
Clearly, that was wrong.
A similar but less extreme distortion occurs when the OP repeatedly includes Michigan's (team B's) worst ten years and Ohio's(Team A's) best, both of which came in years 1-10. I am not saying that MIchigan dominated Ohio in all the other decades, as did team B over A nor that the percentages were equally extreme. But a similar, less extreme distortion is likely to have occurred when the OP reported cumulative statistics repeatedly for a series of decades.
|1 week 1 hour ago||ad hominem attacks--calling somebody a "homer"---||
do not advance the discussion. Let's stick to the facts.
|1 week 1 hour ago||Over the past 10 years, OK||
They have done better. But how about the prior decade? And the decade before that? And the one before that, etc?. Those are the questions that need to be answered. Cumulative data do merely repeat the most recent periods.
Also, to say a team has done better than others requires considering strength of schedule. The OP suggests that in the past 10 and the past 20 years, OSU was #1 in the nation. But to say that their win pct shows they were better than everyone is patently absurd. Their schedule was nowhere near as tough as was the case for recent SEC teams.
|1 week 2 hours ago||Prior to having one of the most dishonest coaches in history||
OSU went 2-10-1 vs UM.
|1 week 2 hours ago||or you could just report each decade separately||
That would more accurately present a picture of each time period.
I never said that you intended to distort anything. That said, I do still think the analysis does distort the program's performance by not excluding vacated wins by OSU, by repeating some of the worst win pct years in UM program history, and by ignoring the high SOS of UM and the extremely low SOS of OSU in recent years.
I recall once computing an SOS-weighted win percentage for UM all time, and UM had by far the highest score--way above ND---and OSU barely made the top ten.
|1 week 2 hours ago||UM has a higher all-time win pct than OSU||
Anybody can distort the data by selectively reporting only particular periods.
|1 week 2 hours ago||Indeed, it distorts the relative performance even more by||
1. ignoring SOS. During the Meyer era, for example, a recent mgoblog diary showed that UM had the toughest schedule. OSU was virtually tied with PSU for the worst SOS in the B1G--in fact, by far the worst.
2. truncating the data at 31 years so that all but a few of Bo's years were excluded (overal win pct 78%)
3. making it appear that these flawed win pct data accurately describe the most recent state of the program--which hardly could be more inaccurate. UM now has a coach with one of the top 5 win percentages all time at the highest level of competition: the NFL.
|1 week 3 hours ago||This post essentially triple counts the most recent 10 years||
That makes UM look worse and OSU look better. Instead, the post should look separately at the different decades eg 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 years,
As noted by the OP, the data also do not correctly subtract OSU wins that were vacated several years ago. That further increases the distortion, which then is repeated in every time frame. I also wonder whey the OP reports such odd periods, 11, 21, 31 years, rather than 10, 20, 30.
|1 week 10 hours ago||Those kids in Ohio were staying in Ohio||
because Tressel was getting them paid.
Maurice Clarett, even after being rehabilitated and mending fences with Tressel, said he got paid far more at OSU than he ever did playing pro football.
The NCAA did nothing about Clarett and his cohorts--even Troy Smith who was caught taking money from a booster. Terrelle Pryor's under-the-table payments later should have made OSU a repeat offender.
In the words of Jim Harbaugh, if you cheat to win, you've already lost. So how many games has OSU lost---really?
|1 week 10 hours ago||Harbaugh's coming speaks volumes about UM's program quality||
What other college program has been able to take from the NFL one of their all-time winningest coaches (ie top 5 in alltime win percentage)?
Granted, Harbaugh may have come to Michigan rather than another school in part because he went to Michigan. But what other school has been able to wrest away from the NFL an equally distinguished alum in the prime of his career?
What team has the most wins in the history of college football?
Who's got it better than us?
|1 week 14 hours ago||An even nuttier student idea came in 1972 at Northwestern||
Students proposed changing the nickname of the team from the Wildcats to the Purple Haze. The latter referred to a very popular Jimi Hendrix song about his hallucinatory experiences on LSD.
The majority of the student body, which was then in a drug-induced delirium, voted to adopt the nickname. Several national newspapers reported that the Wildcats were now the Purple Haze. But the administration vetoed the change. Students protested to no avail.
More recently, the desire for change peristed. Somebody suggested changing the name to the Fighting Armadillos but they were judged insufficiently fierce. Since Northwestern was basically the college team of Chicago, somebody suggested a name related to the Chicago Bears---like the Colbears in honor of alum Stephen Colbert (class of 1986).
|1 week 3 days ago||I also forgot to DVR||
I wonder if there are any online replays of the game. It looks like CBS just has highlights.
|2 weeks 15 hours ago||sounds like an Engelbert Humperdink song||
Please delete me, let me go
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Time pressure and Belichick's end-of-game strategy||
Belichick said he did not call a time out due to the "flow of the game." His decision did speed the flow and increased the time pressure placed on the opposition. That, in turn, could have made their decision less than optimal. When people are under time pressure, they put on their mental emergency lights and often oversimplify choices--they do not consider all of the alternatives. Thus, Carrol might not consider the myriad of difficult-to-anticipate options in his playbook. The Seattle players too might have carried out assignments more mechanically and not modified their play in response to defensive actions. The Seattle OC, in fact, said that the receiver should have pursued the ball more aggressively as Butler approached. Also, a young Russell Wilson might have altered the pass so that—even if it was more likely to go incomplete-- only his own receiver could possibly catch it.
Granted, no one really knows how much the increased time pressure from Belichick's choice mattered. Based on objective statistics, it does seem like he should have instead called a TO. But the time pressure he created could provide some rationale for his choice.
|3 weeks 17 hours ago||actually||
he said he already went on a manned Mars mission--via helicopter.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Urban Liar||
A paper trail of Urban's past fibs has been accumulating. A few of the items are now cartooned in a blog.
|3 weeks 4 days ago||Ohio newspaper questions Meyer's ethics||
Cleveland.com calls Urban Meyer's tactics with Weber at best questionable and at worst exploitative.
|3 weeks 6 days ago||Dantonio's pathetic deception||
Harbaugh does have "results" on his resume. Beyond having the same number of top 4 nationally ranked college teams as Dantionio, he has the fifth highest win pct of any coach in the history of the NFL--at a level of competition that Dantonio has never faced.
Dantonio's pathetically shallow deception about "hope" also betrays his greatest fear--that the "hope" of his future program has undeniably declined. He tries to sell the past, because--with the departure of his star assistant and the arrival of Harbaugh-- the long-term future of his program looks increasingly bleak.
|6 weeks 16 hours ago||Suppose that heating produced correct pressure when delivered||
Did the team then violate any rules by allowing the balls to later cool down to the ambient temperature? If the balls conformed to regulations when checked intially by the refs and the Pats did nothing further to them during the game, did they satisfy the letter of the law (if not the spirit of it)?
|6 weeks 4 days ago||Harbaugh has a far more convincing argument||
"I've been an NFL Pro Bowl QB myself; and I have trained QB's to win both NFC and AFC titles as well as get to a Super Bowl."
Harbaugh also can point right to his former pupil Andrew Luck, who is right now one win away from a Super Bowl.
|7 weeks 2 days ago||My own belief in the Cubs has its roots in Theology||
--the knowledge of Theo Epstein.
|9 weeks 1 day ago||distortions again||
Oh st had a single bad year and amassed many ill gotten gains under tressel. the places where meyer amassed his major accomplishments were not at the minor programs but at the established ones. Without Fla and Ohio, he'd be a nobody
|9 weeks 1 day ago||I said coach, not HC||
and I think it's been 14-15 years. Regardless, if you want to change the numbers, go ahead, but they will not change the points being made.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I believe that I did accurately list many of his accomplishments||
I could have said much more about how he attained them but I prefer the high road.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Coach of the year is more specific to coaching achievements||
A national title is a shared accomplishemt.
Clearly, Harbaugh proved that he could cut it in the NFL. He did great.
Meyer, by contrast, has a history of claiming health problems and backing out of health problems (he retired twice, each not long after losing to Saban). That is one reason why I suggested he could not cut it, as Habaugh so clearly did.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I agree that a national title is more team-oriented||
but the point is that it reflects the skill of many other individuals, not just the HC. The HC deserves some of the credit but not all. When he wins an award for his coaching, it is more specific. For example, it may consider that he started with a very poor team (as JH did with Stanford) but built it into their best team in 75 years (#4). To me, that is just as impressive as coming into a program stacked with 4-5* players and ending up #1. To do turn a failing professional team into a title contender three straight years is even more impressive to me.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Bo never won a national title||
He did something much tougher. He built a program. He built a program with character. Is Tressel a greater coach than Bo beause he had a ring? (no comment).
Meyer, likewise, has built his resume by opportunistically hopping between established programs. He at first climbed aboard a program built by Spurrier (after an interval) and then one built by Tressel/Cooper/Bruce/Hayes. Those teams had already won titles. They already had reputations as football schools.
A "ring" is not only enabled by the school's prior reputation, which enables recruiting. It also is is the accomplishment of multiple assistants and 80+ players.
And it's not true that Harbaugh won no titles. Harbaugh won AFC and NFC championships, which were in a far more competitive arena than Meyer's. He did so despite starting with a horrible roster and without being able to recruit players based on the team's reputation. Nevertheless, he finished #5 all time win % among the NFL greats--ahead of Halas, Shula, Brown, Belichick, Ditka, Dungy, Seifert, Switzer, Cowher....I could go on. In that august company, Meyer's name does not even deserve mention.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||Ok, I see your point now.||
Of course, by definition, in preseason polls, nothing HAS been proven on the field.
|9 weeks 2 days ago||I agree they are not equal. Rather, Harbaugh>Meyer||
He accomplishments are at a higher level and in a shorter time.
Your focus on a "ring" is a convenient deception, since it not only ignores everything else in the OP but also the fact that a "ring" is not the sole accomplishment of a coach. It is the acomplishment of an entire team, including assistants and 80+ players. Meyer's focus on these "rings" reveals his self-aggrandizing nature--he takes credit for the accomplishments of many others.
A coach of the year award is a more specific indicant of coaching quality. While Meyer has won 2 in college, Harbaugh has also won two--one in college and one at a higher (NFL) level.
I think that Meyer knows he couldn't cut it in the NFL, and that's why he's spent 30 years in college.