also duty-free guys falling over and grabbing their shins
- Member for
- 4 years 47 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|4 hours 53 min ago||Yes, but we were talking about Meyer and Hoke||
Apparently, you now agree with me about point spread being valid but want to change the subject.
OK, let's change the subject to performance in the last decade or so under Ohio and UM's third-to-last coaches (conveniently igmoring the decade before than). But you want to start counting Tressel's record, then you have a point numerically---but not ethically. We all know how Tressel got those wins....how he locked down the state...how many of his star recruits admitted taking money, no show jobs, academic improprieties etc. If the NCAA were doing its job and actually talked to Clarret in 2002--and who now publicly admits he was getting paid more at Ohio than he gets paid in the pros---then that entire decade should have been vacated by Ohio.
Personally, I don't feel any burning desire to pat them on the back for it.
|6 hours 23 min ago||Actually, there is reason to||
Actually, there is reason to argue that Ohio has not dominated UM in recent years. As noted above, their average margin of victory in the last 3 years is ZERO!
In the last four years, they have recorded only two wins (let's not forget that they paid for their cheating by forfeiting an entire year of wins--also that most players Meyer used get his measly two wins were recruited by a coach who admitted lying and cheating to the NCAA).
|6 hours 33 min ago||A close win is often just luck. Here, the points don't lie.||
First, the stat which is most predictive of future wins or losses in computer systems involves the point spread, not just Wins or Losses.
Also, last year, a one point Ohio win in regulation occurred because UM did not kick the extra point to go into OT (because we lacked our FG kicker and our QB had a broken foot). I am not sure how much closer you can get than that. As I recall, the 5pt UM loss in Cbus could have gone either way; and the 6pt UM win at the Cap one bowl was not as close as the score would indicate. So, I think my point is still valid. In no way can you say that Meyer has dominated UM. His average margin of victory is ZERO.
|6 hours 44 min ago||In terms of point differential, like Meyer, he is even||
|8 hours 20 min ago||In terms of point differential, he is only even||
-6 +5+1 = 0. Not exactly the kind of "domination" claimed unless ties all go to Meyer.
|8 hours 34 min ago||#murders by his former players > #NC's||
|1 day 6 hours ago||Rumor proven false||
Contrary to a rumor that their top 2 players were cleared to practice on Mon, all four players remained out.
|1 week 6 days ago||Re: MSU misspellings on the green locker room door poster||
Why does the MSU AD seem unencumbered by the rules of spelling, grammar or—for that matter, football? Was their poster produced by delirious delusional MSU grad who could never learn to type “acurately?”
But there may also be another explanation. A new recruit recently told us that MSU is now a “collage.” Accordingly, the poster may have been intended to be a random assemblage of various magazine and newspaper clippings, and texts glued atop one another onto a canvas---resulting in a surreal combination of egregious misspellings, infantile font changes, and unintelligible run-on sentences. Rumor has it that the same approach will be used to replace the usual MSU diploma. The degrees depicted on the canvas will be chosen randomly, which explains why some freshmen commits now believe they are working on master's degrees.
|3 weeks 1 day ago||The Patriots cut Hoyer||
because he had become the #3 QB on their roster.
To compare him with Brady is beyond absurd.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Ohio not in the top 140||
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Over the past 4 years||
Ohio played in one recorded BCS bowl and lost. Ohio had a winning record 2 out of 4 years.
UM played in one bcs bowl and won. UM had a winning record 4 out of 4 years.
Overall, UM was 33-18, Ohio was 30-10 (or 30-22 if you count vacated games as losses).
|3 weeks 2 days ago||and the Ohio wins (i.e. the ones not vacated by the NCAA)||
were still using players recruited by a coach who attracted or retained his players illegally and who admitted lyting to the the NCAA.
|3 weeks 2 days ago||Today was a recruiting day||
and the recruits need to be concerned more with how the teams will perform in the future (ie not based on the past (an RR-upperclassmen-depleted roster) but based on the future (Hoke's incoming recruiting classes).
|3 weeks 3 days ago||If Ohio wasn't threatened today by Cole's commit||
and the growing intrigue of other developments, they wouldn't be coming on this site. UM now has more highly rated players than Ohio does this year (average consensus rank).
Also, with Ty Isaac's transfer here, we have outdone Meyer's best recruiting year at Ohio
(i.e., the remaining players on UM class from Ty Isaac's year have a higher Rivals recruiting rank than those remaining from Ohio's class).
|3 weeks 3 days ago||there's an old saying:||
If at first you don't succeed
.......................skydiving is not for you.
|4 weeks 3 days ago||I was making a different point, but your comments are relevant||
I was writing about the fact that Brown athletics are not the source of huge fan interest, as they are at UM. FB and BB are in no way the same kind of revenue sports and do not attract a huge audience.
In my previous, lengthy post, I did have to leave out an important point you raise. In fact, Brown has put a lot of money into athletics. But, unlike places such as Ohio, where luxurious residences have been constructed for the big money varsity athletes, Brown's emphasis seems to have been on the athletic facilities for students (eg for physical fitness classes, recreation, a huge aquatics facility for swimming as well as facilities for a large number of club sports). During Schlissel's tenure at Brown, a lot of money was raised in donations for these facilties. Maybe that is one reason why UM hired him.
|4 weeks 4 days ago||I am not surprised||
that Schlissel does not really sound like a big sports “fan”, since he is coming from an Ivy League school. When I first joined the faculty of another such school—Harvard—I was already a fanatic follower of UM sports. But I learned that many did not share my enthusiasm for sports teams. My boss was showing me around the periphery of the Longwood Medical Area, not too far from Fenway Park. So I naturally asked him if he was a Red Sox fan. He said a somewhat uppity tone: “I am not a fan of baseball. I did play baseball, though, for Harvard.”
I sensed that being a sports fan was not an accepted outlet for competitive instincts in my new environment. But I learned what was. As we walked through the heart of the medical school area, I noticed a dozen or so parking spaces for faculty members. I asked him how to get one. He said “you need a gun”. At Harvard, “a gun” meant very powerful connections. And the “playing field” for competitors was not a baseball diamond or a football field but a parking lot.
Schlissel too may see power struggles in academia taking priority over those in sports, as was the case at his former school, Brown. During the decade I spent there, I never really cared about Brown athletic teams either. But I still cared deeply about UM athletics. Why? That question is hard to answer until you have attended games at the Big House, gone to homecoming rallies, or experienced the week in Ann Arbor prior to the Ohio game. Once Schlissel does that, don’t be surprised if his attitude changes.
Until then, just be happy that he doesn't act like former Ohio president, Gee, who suggested that the football coach was his boss.
|7 weeks 6 hours ago||I agree that the video was too superficial.||
Also, I am sure the Kings have other "quants" on the staff. However, the “crowdsourcing” “quants” who helped them probably did provide some cogent analyses. Eg An MIT grad, who currently runs a stock fund (Carlton Chin) actually wrote a book on using quantitative analysis to aid sports decisions. To see what kind of input he provided, you really need to look at a graph from a prior you tube video. Since I do not know how to embed a picture, you can stop the video at about 19 seconds and blow it up. Alternatively, let me just explain what I saw.
One graph from Chin (Draft value as a function of pick) showed the estimated value of a draft pick for this year is greater than the average value for other years for each pick from #3 to #14. So, if Sacto were to consider trading their #8 pick this year for another player or a draft pick in some other future years, it would on average need to get more than usual in return. The opposite would be the case, however, if Sacto decided to trade up to the #1 or #2 pick, which this year was lower than in other years.
There are a lot of other factors that the "quants" apparently considered, including computer simulations of ball movement and scoring averages based on whether they draft a shooter or someone more adept in assists or rebounding. Also, some information included graphs of player contribution as a function of year after draft. Such data could help them in deciding how to manage their roster (e.g., unload veterans so that the younger players peak together 4-5 years down the road).
Of course, there is more that mere player development involved in managing the temporal dynamics of the roster. eg I wonder whether the “quants” analyzed the possibility that players on a bad team would have a tougher time attracting the top free agents—as well as lose their own players to free agency. Regrettably, that has been the recent history of Sacto.
|10 weeks 2 days ago||This chart says that Brazil losing is likely||
If they have a 45% chance of winning, there is a greater than even chance they do not win (55%). Silver just says Brazil is the favorite, probably by a larger margin than the betting pools indicate--so, if you had to bet, you should put your money on Brazil and take the odds.
|10 weeks 2 days ago||It was UNC that used the statistics||
The critique of UNC's response just references these, and shows how they mislead. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Granted, the press release is just a press release. But you can also say that a news article is just a news article, an HBO show is just a TV show...and so and so on. Sure, they all have limitations.
Like you, I do not have any stake in the fate of UNC. But I do care about what seems to be happening in college athletics. Because of that, I was interested to read the original summary of the UNC investigations. It acknowleges that some real questions about UNC have not been adequately addressed.
Do I think there is a smoking gun that proves the involvement of the athletic department? Probably not yet. But I also do not believe that the BB coach knew nothing about what was going on. Also, UNC can call the claims of Willingham sensationalist. As they are presented in the press, that is probably correct. Yet the arguments of UNC that they prove nothing seems to collapse under the weight not only of documented tests but grade transcripts and testimony from multiple athletes.
|10 weeks 2 days ago||UNC's misleading response to allegations on HBO: a critique||
"UNC’s Vice Chancellor for Communications and Public Affairs, Joel Curran, has released a statement in response to the HBO ‘Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel’ piece that aired yesterday, March 25, 2014. In that piece, two former UNC football players discussed being steered to fraudulent “paper classes” by academic counselors in the academic support program for student athletes. They also claimed that their majors and the courses for which they registered in their first semesters on campus were chosen for them by counselors. Given the broader context of the HBO presentation - reporter Bernie Goldberg focused on the way that eligibility concerns trump education at big-time sport universities – the testimony of Michael McAdoo and Bryon Bishop was damning. The players claimed, in effect, that the university did not take its educational responsibilities seriously. The powers that be cared only about keeping players on the field, at the cost of academic shortcuts.
Curran’s comment on the HBO show deserves a careful deconstruction, because in its dishonesty, it provides a useful display of the university’s long-term strategy of obfuscation and denial.
1. It cites…the politician’s tactic of claiming that embarrassing revelations represent no more than “old news” when new testimony from athletes confirms not only the existence of fake classes but that .. they were steered to fraudulent classes by athletic department personnel, ..that their courses and majors were selected through eligibility calculations rather than for educational reasons
2. It notes the university habit of citing the number of reforms already implemented and the number of reviews conducted. If each university review was so limited, so partial, so flawed, so inadequate that it required a follow-up, why bother to draw attention to this serial failure? Does Curran actually believe that (he can continue to deceive the public into believing) that UNC (is the) honest and hard-working victim of media persecution?
3. As for the reforms that have been implemented, some of them positive, critical thinkers long ago noted the paradox that UNC repeatedly claims to have fixed problems it never had.
4. .. with a classic, and perfectly typical, exercise in obfuscation, Curran notes that “the 201 first-year student-athletes enrolled in 2013 earned a collective B [2.9] through their first semester”. (His) use of aggregate figures is a transparent ploy to disguise the academic performance of the weaker students at the end of the chain…the average GPA of a UNC undergraduate is 3.2 or better; a collective 2.9 is therefore nothing to crow about…(He does not discuss the players at the heart of the issue i.e., the) twenty-five or thirty..who play in the revenue- (or profit-) sports (i.e., in FB or BB)…those most likely to be academically challenged, most likely to be subject to eligibility pressures of the sort highlighted in the HBO report, and most likely to have weighed down the aggregate GPA of the 201 students in question. (Curran’s sly obfuscation of the real issue)….tells us all we need to know about the game of misdirection that UNC-Chapel Hill has now been playing for years.
5. (Curran suggests that) those who fail to take (the quality academics that UNC) “offers” have only themselves to blame. This is hogwash. Ignoring UNC’s complicity in a system that is structurally prejudiced against athletes in the profit-sports, and stacked against any athlete who gets identified and labeled as an “eligibility” case, is the most offensive form of denial in which the university has engaged. It’s time to acknowledge the Bryon Bishops and the Michael McAdoos, it’s time to apologize to them. Dismissing them as “old news” only adds insult to injury. Surely, UNC-Chapel Hill can do better."
|10 weeks 2 days ago||Yes, there is more evidence to verify McCants' allegations.||
In fact, the actual report of an external commission cited, at UNC cited
-serious breaches of academic integrity
-fake courses and unauthorized grading practices, which extended over a 14 year period without the university stopping them
-potential ties with the athletic department (AD)
They said they were not authorized to investigate many areas and urged further forensic review to see whether the AD promoted these practices to keep kids eligible .
Evidence on vocabulary tests cast serious doubt on the whether a substantial percentage of the athletes belonged at UNC in the first place. Such tests may provide only an imperfect clue regarding the actual grade level of students. But when you have enough such cases, the evidence starts to pile up. And while the exact number of such students was disputed by UNC, it far exceeded the expected admission rate of learning disabled students.
Granted, there are likely to be other serious violators, like UNC out there. There are also probably pressures at many schools to give athletes an easier time in grading. But such pressures a far cry from what seems to have gone on at UNC.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-27/in -fake-classes-scandal-unc-fails-its-athletes-whist le-blower
|10 weeks 2 days ago||I had forgotten about the NCAA FB ban in 2002||
"In March 2012, the NCAA hit the UNC football program with a one-year bowl ban and docked the Tar Heels 15 scholarships over three years for previously discovered improper benefits, including cash and travel accommodations. The NCAA also hammered Blake, the ousted defensive line coach, with a three-year show-cause punishment for failing to report $31,000 in outside income while he was "either employed or compensated by" a sports agent.
Another independent investigation, led by former Gov. Jim Martin, investigated irregularities in the African and Afro-American Studies department after an earlier campus probe found 54 problem classes between 2007 and 2011. Martin determined the problems in the African studies department began in 1997. "This was not an athletic scandal," Martin said. "It was an academic scandal, which is worse. But it was isolated. There was no coach that knew anything about this. They didn't need to know. That was not their job.""
|10 weeks 2 days ago||Another of Williams' recruits||
Another of Williams' recruits (at Kansas) had only a 450 SAT score in Calif, then went to NC to take the test and got 1150, good enough for admission to the school. When the score was questioned by the educational testing company, Williams said it was because he had worked hard and shown a dramatic academic improvement. (reminsicent of McCants going from failing grades to straight A's, but even more implausible since it was an aptitude test--in fact, more reminiscent of the way Bull's star, Rose, got into Calipari's program).
Unsurprisingly, when the kid had to retake the test a third time, he scored below 650. So, he could not join Williams' program and went pro.
|10 weeks 5 days ago||Please Hold the Bacon.||
To call Brandon mindlessly profit-seeking and “unfair” to the UM faithful may have some truth. But it sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Bacon himself sold out UM to bring home the bacon. He made money off UM’s troubles under RR Also, his one-sided book, based on the words of a fired coach, hardly seemed “fair”. It made UM look bad.
Granted, Brandon has made some head-scratching moves (student tickets, games with Ala, Appy State and MSU, an exploitable contract with ND, etc.). If I were a student, I’d probably be pissed. Also, I wish that "college" sports were still college sports. But UM has to find a way to succeed in the real world, not in my own wish-fulfilling fantasies.
While Bacon’s job is to find stories, Brandon’s job is to make money, pay coaches, and enhance UM’s image. It’s easy to make fun of him: a guy who sometimes seems to sell UM like a pizza. But Bill Martin’s laissez-fare tenure and the RR fiasco made UM concerned about image. UM needed a more “hands-on” leader who knew about image making in the new world of sports media, biased committees, rich boosters, and public relations firms.
In criticizing Brandon, Bacon tries to make Bill Martin into a heroic figure. I appreciate that Martin faced extraordinary challenges, and I don’t doubt that he’s a decent guy with integrity. Yet, during his tenure, he let UM look like they still were guilty, while he was getting his pocket picked by Ohio. Martin was busy issuing mea culpas over ten year-old NCAA violations (judged by an Ohio alum and the current Ohio AD), while Ohio was busy hiring a shady new coach who had been accused of NCAA violations. Then Ohio paid unheard-of sums to public relations firms to reduce public pressure. They kept the school out of NCAA jail for ten years before the public found out what everyone else knew: that Tressel was a liar.
If public relations firms in Ohio could have kept a liar like Tressel out of jail for ten years, similar help could have made decent people like LC and RR look like saints. But in retrospect, Martin seemed to help little with Lloyd Carr’s annual questions about retirement, rumors of illness, or public debates, about whether #3 Fla or #2 UM should play for a national title. Even worse, Martin seemed to help little after a disastrous coaching search, leaked information, public bickering between alums, and the selection of a spread–formation coach that did not match the personnel. He did not give RR a big media build-up, or help him publicly deal with tough questions, as Brandon did for Brady Hoke. So, the media seemed to attack RR for a new reason every week: from player records to academics to lawsuits to practice-gate (which involved a lack of guidance and oversight from Martin’s own administrative staff).
So, UM turned to a businessman, Brandon, who had expertise in branding. I personally do not seek people like Brandon when I want to go out for a beer. But, after the RR fiasco, UM may have needed a guy like him: an autocratic, “hands-on” leader who knew something about marketing and image making. Maybe someday we will no longer need that. But with the direction that college football is heading, I won't hold my breath.
|11 weeks 59 min ago||Yes. It would be more informative||
to look at performance for an individual qb within a single game (before pooling the results across different ones). Someone could get such data by looking at a game log. Clearly, it would be a lot more work but maybe worth it. The topic is very important.
|11 weeks 2 hours ago||spurious correlations are possible||
If I correctly understand the nature of the data presented, then the relationship between sacks and accuracy might be spurious e.g.,QBs are likely to be sacked more by a team with a good defense--eg good DBs may cause the receivers to be covered and increasing the chances of a coverage sack. Also, QBs playing vs such teams are more likely to pass inaccurately or be intercepted e.g., again because the DBs are good.
These relations will induce an apparent correlation between the number of sacks and the accuracy/interception rates even if there is no direct relation. As the authors note, further statistical analysis is needed (eg examining the correlation between sacks and accruracy after controlling for the quality of the defense).
I do not doubt that there will still be some correlation--the argument about the effect of hits is very plausible. However, the correlation may be much smaller than it appears.
|11 weeks 1 day ago||There is a theoretical problem with a 50-50 standard||
In the most simplistic Bayesian framework, the standard suggests that we consider only how likely an offense is without accounting for the amount of evidence to support the charge. That is not the case if we must prove the offense occurred "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I am not arguing for one approach or the other. The standards are both pretty fuzzy to me. But I would hope that schools have some clear and reasonable guidelines about the amount of evidence needed to judge an case. The "more likely than not" standard, alone, does not seem sufficient and could put us on a very slippery slope.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||To dupe new recruits||
Meyer turned Tebow into an NCAA rule violator and criticized UF for having character problems in their players. He neglected to mention that these players were the ones that he himself had recruited. Or that they included recruits he had previously lied to, when he claimed he was staying at UF, then left. Or that he claimed health issues for dumping the team, but then took a similar HC job a year later.
Character issues, in his players? Pot meet kettle.
And if he wants to criticize UM now for a lack of trustworthiness, the guy really needs to look in the mirror.
|11 weeks 2 days ago||correction||
I meant "talk to McDowell's" mother (not Dawson's)