OT: Did Anyone Else Hear This?

Submitted by skeet on January 9th, 2009 at 12:43 AM

At the end of the game when Tebow got an unsportsmanlike penalty, the announcer said, "That's probably the first wrong thing he's done in his entire life!"

Everyone I was watching with just went WTF?!?!? and died laughing.

So much outlandish Tebow man-love that it was comical.


chitownblue (not verified)

January 9th, 2009 at 9:27 AM ^

Because judging someone on their career is different than judging them on a single season. That would be like saying Brett Favre isn't a HOF QB because he wasn't good this year.

Further, I'd put his season over Sam Bradford's, and 2 championships to 0 would swing him over McCoy.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 10th, 2009 at 9:51 AM ^

Where did I say he was solely responsible for 2 national championships?(!!!)

What I said is that he was a contributor on a team that won one, and probably the largest cog in a team that won another.(!!!)

In another post in which you've attempted to have the same argument you pasted a list of this year's leaders in total passing yards to claim Tebow isn't one of the 30 best QB's in football. By that measure, your best college quarterback of all time is something named Tommy Chang. So lets find a better measure, shall we?

If you look at ESPN's archived stats, there are two players in the past 7 years who have been in the top 5 in passer efficiency more than once - Tim Tebow and Sam Bradford. Considering that up until last year, the NCAA all-time leader in pass efficiency was Ryan Dinwiddie with a 168.9. (both Tebow and Bradford are mid 170's), we can assume that no-one before that date had numbers as high. Passer efficiency calculation can be found here:


Passer efficiency takes into account TD/attempt, INT/attempt, Yards/attempt, and completion %. Sam Bradford's passer efficiency mark is slightly higher than Tebow's, but, as I've said ad nauseum, a large portion of Tebow's value is in his ability to run the ball (Tebow has over 1700 yards rushing, Bradford has 72).

So, Tebow is, currently, the #2 all-time passer in passer efficiency, and has 1630 more rushing yards and two more championships than the guy that is #1. And he has one more year to play. So, I guess that no stats justify him being a top 5 QB aside from Passer Efficiency, which is intended to be a catch-all of overall QB quality, in which he is the 2nd best all time.


Enjoy Life

January 10th, 2009 at 12:01 PM ^

OMG, you want to use a computer formula to determine the best college players of all time????

The stats I posted are the ones that exist. And, when you look at the record books, these are the stats that are used.

Everyone can (and does) have an opinion about best players.

What you said was that "sheer statistical weight" made it hard not to include TT. No such evidence exists.

BTW: 2006 TT: 22 Attempts, 33 Complete, 358 Yds (WOO, EEEEE)
MVP of 2006 BCS Championship Game -- Chris Leak

So, TT was a player for Florida in 2006. But, so were 100 or so other guys. That "contribution" is statistical nonsense.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 10th, 2009 at 12:55 PM ^

He was also there primary short-yardage running back in 2006. That is a contribution, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

Regardless, you've said all you need to say about the level of scrutiny you want to bring to the conversation: you think Colt Brennan and Tommy Chang are the best QB's in college history. If you can't see the problem in assigning the title based on total passing yards, and ignoring the offensive systems in which the players play, there's no point in discussing it.

And, I know! I'm such a nerd for using a "formula" that involves such complicated math as division!


January 10th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^

See, total passing yards EXISTS, man. It's real!

Your nerd forumla is made of leprechaun spleens and unicorn turds. It's not REAL, MAN! It's not in RECORD BOOKS (except for the ones that it is in...) !!!!


January 10th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^

You are a disgrace to the profession.

Pass efficiency is measurement derived from a mathematical formula. You may utilize a computer to implement the formula and calculate the pass efficiency, but it is a mathematical formula, not a "computer formula."

If you are inferring that a mathematical formula cannot be used to determine a statistical measurement, may the engineering gods have mercy on your soul. Should I assume that a standard deviation is not a statistical measure of any kind? It's derived from a mathematical formula, and (gasp!) may be calculated using a computer.

And if you are inferring that pass efficiency statistics do not exist, the fact is, statistical measurements already exist for everything that has occurred. As an engineer, you should understand that mathematics is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is something that is discovered, not created. Hence, statistics, as a mathematical measure, already exist, and pass efficiency stats in particular exist. They are calculated and maintained in the record books of the NCAA. See e.g.,: http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/Stats_Manuals/Football/2008%20Foot…

Ultimately, your counterpoints fail to address the sheer statistical weight argument. Sheer statistical weight is inherently premised on more than any one particular statistic. Your responses, on the other hand, attack only individual statistics (e.g., Tebow's 2006 stats, OR 2008 stats, OR number of MNC's), as opposed to the combined weight of those statistics. There is simply no way you can make a valid counterargument by attacking individual stats of individual years, when the original argument is looking at the stats in their entirety.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself.

Blue Durham

January 10th, 2009 at 4:55 PM ^

but you statement

"...mathematics is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is something that is discovered, not created..."

is not really correct. Mathematics are concepts. They occur in our thoughts, not out there in nature. Mathematics help us make relationships between things and events. Mathematics are created; calculus, say, only occurs in our thoughts, not out there in nature.


January 10th, 2009 at 6:21 PM ^

but I have to disagree. Just because one can conceive something, doesn't mean that it wasn't there all along. That is, conception does not necessarily equate with creation. In some cases, a concept is entirely new (e.g., an invention). In other cases, a concept is recognized, but was otherwise there all along. In that latter sense, I view mathematics are naturally occurring, even if they are ultimately realized as mental concepts. Of course, this discussion could go on and on about how closely mathematics relate to nature (I find fractal geometry to be very interesting, in this regard).

In any case, I respect your opinion, and I suppose it's debatable. At the very least, it is an interesting discussion, and I agree that mathematics are essentially tools to help us establish relationship. I just view the tools as a set of natural laws that are recognized as mathematical concepts, but the root still lies in nature. In that sense, I see mathematics as being a natural phenomenon. This is not to trivialize any of the work by mathematicians; they are by far among the smartest people I have known. I think we are just coming at this from very different directions, probably from having very different experiences.

And thanks for letting me get my inner nerd on. Much appreciated.

Blue Durham

January 10th, 2009 at 6:51 PM ^

with me, my wife does it all the time.

We use models to better understand physical phenomena. Conceptual models (e.g., the Bohr atom, organic chemistry "mechanisms," etc.), computer models (e.g. weather, global climate) and mathematical. But these models are all concepts to allow us to make understand and predictions, but they are not to be confused with reality (which may or may not be "knowable" OMG, epistemology).

No doubt, mathematicians are some of the smartest people out there. And they indeed can be "out there."

Fractal Geometry! Wow, you must really know your mathematics. I got up to differential equations and was completely lost.


January 10th, 2009 at 7:44 PM ^

Sounds all too familiar.

Models are a tricky one. It's a good example, because there's such a close relation between software and mathematics. Believe me, there is plenty of discussion out there as to whether software and mathematics are in the same realm. But ultimately, I view the software routine as the creation (by no means an easy task, much of the time) and the mathematics behind it as an expression of logic being implemented by the software. But the mathematics are still an expression of knowledge about nature, IMO. For example, we know that models are often used to simulate naturally occurring phenomenon. I don't believe models would be accurate predictors of natural events if they were not built upon what we already know about nature, and that knowledge is expressed as mathematics.

Put is this way (and I don't mean to be condescending by using this example), take the equation we all learned at an early age: 2+2=4. Granted, at some point there had to be symbols created to effectively communicate this expression (e.g., the numbers, the plus sign, the equals sign), but the concept or logic itself was already known to have occurred in nature. That is, 2 of a thing in addition to another 2 of that thing resulted in 4 of that thing has been true since the beginning of time.

I think I'll just conclude by citing Morris Kline in the book "Mathematics and the Physical World" who wrote "In the beginning, God created mathematics and then created heaven and earth according to the laws of mathematics." Now I'm not intending to make this a theological discussion, but that phrase was used to summarize his belief that "... every abstraction that even the greatest mathematician has introduced is ultimately derived from and is therefore understood in terms of intuitively meaningful objects or phenomena." It is this belief that I subscribe to and why I conclude that mathematics is ultimately naturally occurring.

For the record, I do not even come close to understanding fractal geometry. I simply find it very interesting, and desire to learn more. It's relationship with nature is by far the most intriguing aspect that I've learned. I've always seen the strong connection between mathematics and nature, but never so much as with fractals.


January 9th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^

When I play racquetball, I put verses on my wristbands.

Ezekiel 23:19-20:

"Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions"


January 9th, 2009 at 2:02 AM ^

I actually didn't care one way or another about Tebow until this game. I found myself routing against him due to the pathetic amount of sappy man love the announcers were spewing. Seriously, I had to shut off the sound when they started talking about him living in orphanages and working with lepers and how you just become a better person by being in his presence. I think I just threw up a little thinking about it.


January 9th, 2009 at 4:49 AM ^

I think I can make it a bit more appropriate for football. "And the Football god so loved Florida, he gave his only begotten man child of a son, that whoever believes in the spread offense shall not lose, but kick the shit out of everyone but Michigan and Houston Nutt."

Congrats to Timmah, he's one helluva ballplayer, and congrats to Urban Meyer, who somehow has 2 bcs titles, neither of which in his lone undefeated season. Hope to see them next year playing the Maize n Blue, because wherever they are will be a pretty good destination.

Elno Lewis

January 9th, 2009 at 8:38 AM ^

I became a better person last night just because I hugged my tv every time there was a Tebow closeup. This morning, I walked to work bare foot and in my bathrobe, and did not get cold. Then I cured a police officer of his dementia. Then I gave my Tebowtestimony to the other people in the cell. I now shit marble and piss wine. Not that cheap box wine stuff either. The good stuff. I said thank you to that nice nurse who gave me a shot. Tebow protects me everywhere I go now. I am always safe. Nighty night everyone.

chitownblue (not verified)

January 9th, 2009 at 8:48 AM ^

I actually don't mind the Tebow stuff. I mean, yes, it's incredibly tiresome and pedantic. But by all accounts, he is a really good kid - he's smart, he does incredible amounts of charitable work, and he's a phenomenal player. I'm not a religious person at all but he is one of few public people I can think of that doesn't just use their faith as a PR campaign - he talks about it, and he lives what he talks about every day. So, if they're going to worship someone, at least they're directing it at a good person. It's when you turn on Notre Dame football and start seeing paeans to Charlie Weis when I start getting sick.


January 9th, 2009 at 9:05 AM ^

I will be the first to admit, I am jealous of the kid. As someone who is trying to get into medical school I would kill for his charity and community service work on my resume. Damn I am selfish.


January 9th, 2009 at 3:22 PM ^

I used to not mind all the praise for Tebow. He is certainly a great football player and an even better person, but it has just gone too far. Everything that goes right for Florida is because of Tebow and he can do no wrong, and hasn't done anything wrong in his life. All the hyperbole and Bronco Nagurski comments from Danielson have conditioned me to scoff at any and all slurping of Tebow.

Oh, and I'm going with 2 Kings 6:29:

"So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son."