|06/17/2017 - 6:19pm||The great irony of all this||
The great irony of all this left vs. right stuff is that Obama was a pretty conservative democrat. Many of his policies (foreign and domestic) were more consistent with what republicans would have favored in the past. My personal belief is that more people had a problem with what he was ("educated, costal elite" and black) that his actual policies.
|01/30/2017 - 12:57pm||I guess we can debate whether||
I guess we can debate whether or not this is political. One thing that doesn't seem up for debate? This dude just sucks.
|10/06/2013 - 1:00pm||"Bork! Bork! Bork!" at The||
"Bork! Bork! Bork!" at The Big House? Sounds like fun.
|08/24/2013 - 7:51am||1 and 2. Your delusion knows||
1 and 2. Your delusion knows no bounds. He said the exact same thing were all saying: your analysis misses too many potential variables. Then you were awarded the diarist of the week for "effort" because you posted two of them. That's not a good thing, man. Get a grip.
3. I'm not arguing that they're not developing! I'm just saying that the data doesn't support that conclusion. You can make that claim, but it isn't data analysis it's Ron Utah's opinion.
4. Your data doesn't prove anything on whether or not its a bad thing if Green doesn't play. It suggests that if Green doesn't play he may still turn out to be a strong performer.
5. Yep, it is. And like everyone else here, I started off polite but you're so unbelievably defensive of your work that it seems like the only way to get through to you. The remarkable part is, even that hasn't worked. We're just haters and jealous, right? If you can't even see what Seth wrote as a critique, you're beyond hope.
/participation in this thread
|08/23/2013 - 1:57pm||When you post something and||
When you post something and everyone says it's crap, it's probably crap. It's time to just say, "welp, maybe I took my logic a bit too far here" and move on. If your analysis were good, or right, everyone would be saying "wow man, that's pretty interesting", Brian would have put it on the front page, and people would be calling me an jerk for criticizing you. As far as I can tell, none of those things has happened.
It IS an inarguable fact that RBs often don't play early and still turn out to be pretty darn good. If that were your only conclusion, we'd be telling you that your results are valid...and completely uninteresting. Unfortunately, that isn't the point you made. Your point, as I read it, was that these players are developing in the time that they aren't being productive. That is not supported by your data. We have no idea what they're doing. Like you said: it is unknowable. If it's unknowable, it can't be a conclusion of your data.
By the way, measuring how good of a player is ahead of these guys isn't at all impossible to do. It wouldn't be difficult at all to control for how good the player above these guys is, and actually would make the data a lot more interesting. Your hypothesis could be that highly rated running backs who can't beat a mediocre starter/backup (not Fitz, just in general) turn out to be busts more often. Go back and look at all the 5 star running backs, measure the productivity of the RB that started/backed up instead of them, and then see how they turned out. Might not yield anything, but if it did it would be really interesting.
|08/22/2013 - 1:28pm||Nobody is disagreeing that||
Nobody is disagreeing that some/many RBs take some time to devlop. What we're saying is that your study has no mechanism to capture RBs who are objectively very good when they show up on campus, but don't get production because they are stuck behind someone better than them. You're missing a variable.
Take a QB example, Matt Cassell. We have no way of knowing whether he showed up at USC NFL-ready or not because he spent his entire career behind Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart. Using your method we would say that he didn't develop into good quarterback until he showed up in the NFL, but we don't really know if that's true or not. He could have been a great quarterback, he was just stuck behind a Heisman winner and a top-10 draft pick. Your output doesn't determine your talent, it is only an indicator.
All people are pointing out is that you may be drawing a conclusion that isn't completely supported by the evidence. The collective mGoHivemind is pretty bright, you should take input and revise or temper your conclusions. Mathlete and others do it all the time.
Edit: grammatical in nature
|08/22/2013 - 8:38am||I think you might have been||
I think you might have been in the same stats class as LSAClassof2011....
|12/08/2012 - 12:42am||Could you expand that to the||
Could you expand that to the rest of the board, please?
|12/08/2012 - 12:17am||This is the second time in||
This is the second time in one thread you have been completely wrong. Impressive.
The repeated collisions that linemen experience are as bad if not worse than single concussions that happen to someone like a quarterback. The cumulative effect is staggering.
|12/02/2012 - 12:48pm||Beilein said specifically||
Beilein said specifically that Lavert was going to come in to play defense.
|09/04/2012 - 12:38am||Response to Note 1:
Response to Note 1:
He needs to read both the DE and the LB so that he doesn't pull and eat a face full of scraping LB. I think maybe it's you that doesn't understand.
|08/27/2012 - 3:00pm||I'm agnostic about Fitz||
I'm agnostic about Fitz playing. However, consider this:
One could argue that texting and driving is at least as dangerous as driving drunk. In fact, I think I'd rather have someone driving around A2 with a 0.08 BAC than someone with an iphone conversation going on.
DUI is a big deal because someone (MADD) made a big deal about it. The risk of crash increases dramatically, but is still small. Speeding has a similar, but smaller impact. There is evidence that distracted driving actually has an even larger impact in some cases (google around, I don't have time to now). Should people go to jail for all of them? Would you feel the same way if Fitz had gotten a ticket for texting and driving?
|07/19/2012 - 5:25pm||Like the design of||
Like the design of Shembechler Hall, but the placement of the billboard not so much. I think it obstructs the view of the stadium and the awesome block M on the scoreboard. Makes that area look too busy visually.
|06/02/2012 - 4:32pm||The Giants got a DT too?||
The Giants got a DT too? Nice.
|05/23/2012 - 7:48am||See above.||
|05/23/2012 - 12:29am||Sarcasm?||
|05/17/2012 - 4:57pm||Enjoy your black and white||
Enjoy your black and white world.
|05/17/2012 - 12:12pm||Then let's not give them the||
Then let's not give them the "gift" of free tickets to the stadium or free field passes either. Same goes for basketball and hockey. They have a fundraising arm that can pay for their tickets just like I pay for mine.
While we're following your logic, let's not send them to bowl games either.
Flyovers? Cheerleaders? Dance Team? Don't need em. Not a part of the athletic department. ROTC putting the flag up? Nope, they have to pay too. Police to direct traffic? Traffic is not part of the athletic department.
You can get ridiculous with this stuff.
Bottom line, the band is part of the gameday expereince of the football team. This was a home game replacement. They held seats for the band at Cowboy Stadium for a reason, clearly the AD is more on my side than yours here. The band should have gone, and the band is going. Period. There's nothing illogical about that.
|05/17/2012 - 11:49am||They all contribute to the||
They all contribute to the game day experience. To me the the fact that one is a group of humans and the other is made from polyethylene isn't germane to the conversation. The MMB exists primarily because the athletic department does. In both cases we're talking about the AD spending money to enhance the gameday expereince for the student-athletes and fans.
|05/17/2012 - 11:31am||IT'S NOT A GIFT.
How hard is
IT'S NOT A GIFT.
How hard is this to understand? The AD is not paying for the band to go on vacation to Dallas in the winter. The band is going becuase they provide a service to the AD that the fans demanded. If the fans and boosters that fund the athletic department thought that we needed clowns at the game, the AD should consider getting clowns. It wouldn't then be a gift to the clowns; the AD is hiring them. IT'S NOT A GIFT. IT'S NOT A GIFT. IT'S NOT A GIFT.
|05/17/2012 - 11:28am||Heyyyy, we're past the||
Heyyyy, we're past the ad-hominem attacks. Nice.
I agree, having been at both women's basketball and gymnastics, that it does feel more than a little empty. I also agree that it gives the appearance that Michigan doesn't care about non-revenue sports. I am also not arguing against a curtain, though I'm not sure I'd be exstatic about it if I were an gymnast either since it is a tacit admission that we can't fill the arena. I just think that the overall benefit to the AD of having the band in Dallas is higher than having a curtain in Crisler. It's like pompoms for home games or shirts to make the block-M, not really within the purview of the AD, but they still pay for it. With respect to the curtain and the band, the AD has the money and should do both. I'm not arguing that the AD should pay for MBB to attend a random away game scheduled by the the B1G either. I think this is a special case since we gave up a home game and are getting paid somewhat like a home game to do it.
|05/17/2012 - 11:13am||Wow, I was worried for a||
Wow, I was worried for a second that I might be the biggest jerk in this conversation, but you've ensured that isn't the case. You people are so hostile. Calm down. Why does this have to be a referendum on my intelligence? I assure you I'm quite capable of thinking logically. Is in not possible that we have opinions that both flow logically from differing assumptions about the purpose and goals of the athletic department? Just because my logic is not your logic does not mean that isn't logical.
Like I said below, my opinion on this is malleable, but you are doing a terrible job of providing any reason to change my opinion.
|05/17/2012 - 2:33am||Right. There is an undeniable||
Right. There is an undeniable and inextricable link between the two, though. My opinion is that the AD derives at least as much--if not more--benefit from sending the band to Dallas as it does on a curtain for Crisler. That isn't borne out of any bias against women's sports (I'm a regular attendee at volleyball and field hockey), I just think a curtain is a ridiculous way for the AD to spend half a million dollars. If the AD wanted to spend half a million on assistants for women's basketball i would be all for it. The atmosphere around women's athletics is so stifling; even a whiff of a slight towards a womens team and people come out of the woodwork to attack. If this were about wrestling I suspect the outcry wouldn't be close to as vehement.
|05/16/2012 - 11:58pm||I think the point is that the||
I think the point is that the expected value of a long two is lower than the expected value of a three, because the make percentage doesn't go up enough by taking one step forward to justify the decrease in reward for success. If you make 36% of long twos the expected point value of every shot is 0.7; if you make 32% of three pointers the expected value is 0.96. If that's the case and you go possession for possesion, the team taking the threes will win most of the time.
|05/16/2012 - 11:30pm||MMB is not the football team||
MMB is not the football team just like the curtain is not the women's basketball team, but MMB contributes to the gameday expereince in football just as the athletic facilities contribute to the gameday expereince. While it would be silly to equate the two, there are certainly similarities.
You seem awfully hostile. What's up here? I gave you my logic. Now I'm asking for yours. That's how a discussion/argument goes. My opinion is malleable, but "RAWR YOU ARE STUPIDZ FOR NOT AGREEING WITH ME" is not going to change my mind.
|05/16/2012 - 10:07pm||And, quite frankly, I think||
And, quite frankly, I think they should do both. We have plenty of money.
|05/16/2012 - 10:06pm||If you really want to boil it||
If you really want to boil it down, in a world where people go to bed hungry every night why are we spending half a million dollars on either of them? This is sports though, so we have excepted all reality.
Faulty logic? Where? You can't take one part of my argument and let it stand alone and then call it faulty. How can I compare the two? They're both expenditures by the athletic department. Why is it self-evident that a capital improvement is more important than a branding exercise? How do you value them? NPV? I'd bet the MMB in Dallas is has a higher NPV than the curtain. You don't think that Herbstreit and Mussberger wouldn't have mentioned the absence of MBB? People we talking about it on Alabama message boards. Not genreally borne by the athlettic department? True, but we don't generally play the first game of our season in Dallas against the reigning national champions. It's clear by the reaction of the athletic department that more than the people in the stadium would have cared. Further, you do notice when MMB isn't at a game. It's always clear when they aren't at away games.
I've been at both an MWBB game and a gymnastics meet in Crisler and never felt like it detracted from my enjoyment of them game. MMB not being in Dallas definitely would have detracted from my enjoyment.
|05/16/2012 - 9:35pm||Well, from a purely numbers||
Well, from a purely numbers standpoint, I'd be that more people will watch the game in Dallas (on TV and in person) than will watch a game using the curtain in the three or four decades. I'd also bet that more people would notice the absense of MMB than will notice the emptiness of the arena.
On the more philosophical side, what makes one sport more important than another? In my mind, sports are important beause people care about them. How else could you differentiate them? Championships won? Perhaps. Women's basketball championships don't pay the women's basketball coach's salary though, football does. We could distribute all the revenues equally between all the sports, but neglecting football would likely lower revenues and have an adverse effect on all of the other sports. In effect, paying more attention to women's basketball might actually make them worse off in the long term.
So I would pose the question back to you. Why is going to an extra game for MMB not more important than women's basketball and gymnastics? Why does engineering, law, and business get more funding than philosophy? Why do the athelets have state of the art practice facilities and I'm stuck in the CCRB? Why is my roommate going to Google and I'm still unemployed? Why did the girl at Rick's go home with the baseball player and not me?
|05/16/2012 - 4:11pm||It takes a vice grip on||
It takes a vice grip on Brandon's nether regions to get the band to Dallas, but we have the money to make the women's basketball team look better for the 8 people watching it on BTN? I'm all for fairness, but I don't get that.
|05/10/2012 - 8:47pm||The guy had pretty legit||
The guy had pretty legit offers (ND, MSU, Wisco, Nebraska, and some Big East teams), so let's not get too out of hand here.
|05/08/2012 - 12:38pm||This is great, especially||
This is great, especially considering his signature.
|05/04/2012 - 12:14pm||Too many RCMB-ish threads||
Too many RCMB-ish threads these days.
|04/19/2012 - 11:08am||Character||
Cant help but wonder if the coaches just really like him as a person as well as a player. He seems like a really smart kid with a good family network. Fit seems very important to Hoke & Co.
|12/14/2011 - 1:20am||I thought he played for the||
I thought he played for the Eagles....
|11/29/2011 - 7:39pm||We're gonna lose a game over||
We're gonna lose a game over free throw shooting here if we don't get it in order....
|11/27/2011 - 6:09pm||I buddy of mine saw him at||
A buddy of mine saw him at the MDen today stocking up on gear. Not reading into it too much, but it can't be a bad sign.
|10/09/2011 - 10:23pm||Who?||
|09/25/2011 - 11:14am||I'm not sure if your||
I'm not sure if your eyeball pairings is quite rigorous enough to make the definitive claims you make in the analysis. I would expect that this year's SOS is higher than last.
Also, punt % looks pretty good other than ND 2010 vs 2011 (in this case I think 2011 ND is quite a bit better than 2010 ND). This is especially the case since the higher turnover numbers take away from the potential for punt %. Did you consider turnovers on third down that otherwise would have been a punt etc.
I'd go back to the drawing board a bit before you come out and say with such certainty that this defense is "very flawed." With what I'm seeing I think the best you can say is, "the data seem to suggest that this defense isn't quite as improved as we all would like to think." Even that might be a stretch.
|09/18/2011 - 3:08pm||I guess that means we'll have||
I guess that means we'll have to settle for Penn State and Nebraska. Wait, what's that? We already have Penn State and Nebraska? Sweet. Let's stick with what we have then.
|09/11/2011 - 2:50pm||He lists out at 214 on the||
He lists out at 214 on the roster....
|09/05/2011 - 4:55pm||You kinda sound like you||
You kinda sound like you should be writing on RCMB there...
|09/04/2011 - 10:27am||Who is DRob? Oh. You mean||
Who is DRob? Oh. You mean Denard Robinson? Shoelace? Yeah. He probably deserves better than the lame and nearly ubiquitous nickname scheme.
|06/10/2011 - 8:07pm||Looks like DB has a terrible||
Looks like DB has a terrible hair dye job.
|05/27/2011 - 10:29am||Amazing||
That would be amazing if we find out The Lantern is paying players for interviews...
|05/26/2011 - 1:48pm||It pains me that MSU is even||
It pains me that MSU is even relevant enough for us to be worried about what they claim to have won. Who cares? If you did a find and replace to switch MSU and Michigan, this would read like a slightly more sophisticated RCMB thread.
Stop the madness!
|03/23/2011 - 12:10am||I was thinking the same||
I was thinking the same thing, and then you ruined it for me.
|03/15/2011 - 6:08pm||The national rankings relate||
The national rankings relate only to undergraduate education, while the world rankings speak to the university overall (undergrad, grad, research). This makes sense, Michigan's grad programs are generally more well respected than their (also well respected, but slight less so) undergrad programs.
|03/09/2011 - 12:40pm||Cool, with that attitude||
Cool, with that attitude about things I'm sure you'll enjoy the Eli Broad School of Business. I hear its a great place to break into the packaging industry.
|03/09/2011 - 12:34pm||Dude straight crushed it at||
Dude straight crushed it at Vandy aside from sports though. Faculty and students loved him, increased applications and SAT scores, and raised a billion dollars for the endowment. And his wife smoked doobies in the presidents house. He might be a little bit of a weasel, but nobody can argue with the results.
|03/08/2011 - 12:02am||Best advice? Spend the next||
Best advice? Spend the next 8 years becoming a dynamic person and learning how to drink. The former you'll need to get into Ross, the latter will be important once you get here. The last thing you should be thinking about in your freshman year is how to set yourself up to get into b-school (passing calculus and getting laid should be high on that list). Figure out what you want to do with your life, have some interesting experiences, and don't have embarrassing grades and you'll be fine.