Edit: It's redirecting to the paywall no matter which link I use, so I'm going to shamelessly embed the tweet Joe posted.
The college football Grid of Shame: Where does your team rank? https://t.co/4V3d2nFUvW pic.twitter.com/X25StmgEna— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) September 2, 2016
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
TKP faux pas: posting content behind a paywall
EDIT: just use Joe's link below.
Does Googling the URL still work for WSJ? I haven't been there in a while.
A picture is worth 1,000 words, and it seems like if you click the link below it will circumvent the paywall.
HA.
redirect from facebook? SIGN IN!!
redirect from twitter? have some free content
I tried the twitter, facebook, and truncated links and they were all redirecting me, which is weird, because it didn't the first time.
Anyway I updated the OP. My bad guys.
Baylor, UNC, and Ole Miss below Penn State on the "embarrassing" scale. Ouch.
And yet, LOLUVa is not in that quadrant, but we are (slightly)...I question their methodology.
Wait...what problems did we have that put us on the bottom? I get why we're on the left but not sure why we're on the bottom
I was trying to figure that out as well. Our program has a good image. The things I could think of were: a somewhat low APR in football (9th in the ACC), the recent arrests of Alexander and Gaines (of course, minor compared to some of the things that happen), and a noticeable decline in attendance in recent years. Of course, their explanation of what determines admirable vs. embarrassing is basically "here's what we think," so take it with a large salt lick (just for you, my equine friend).
Thanks. Adonis and Gaines does make a difference. Seemed to be a subjective rating, I hate seeing something like this without reasoning. Maybe it's just some click bait to get get fan bases riled up. WSJ tends to be covered in ads.
I agree. One-game suspensions for misdemeanors happen everywhere. If there had been outright dismissals for poor conduct or criminal activity, that's another thing. Unless they're still holding the CJ Reavis situation from last year against us in a cumulative perception thing.
Does attendance matter? Stanford is pretty high and nobody goes to their games.
The note at the bottom of the image says attendance factors into their decision. Probably having tens of billions of dollars in a university endowment papers over any other concerns one might have about Stanford. Also, it's Stanford. The name is synonymous with prestige.
I know he's not a member of the Stanford football program, but I'd rather have a couple guys who got caught with some pot than Brock Turner any day
Well, the same could be said for VT with the former track athlete who killed a 13-year-old girl. But that's not what's being compared here.
At the risk of going off on a tangent here...does anyone actually think of that guy and VT in the same thought?
I don't even remember the guy's name, and I no absolutely no one that would refer to VT if you mentioned it.
EVERYONE knows what school Brock Turner went to.
No, people probably think of other terrible events at VT. I don't want to go down that road; it is not my intention. The point was you can associate an asshole with just about any university. The ratings here are about football.
why are we so low on the admirable-embarrassing scale? I don't understand this
Oh Kansas.
Like everyone else, I'm not getting VT's place in the "admirable-embarrassing" scale. VT has always run a clean program.
Only thing I can think of is the Vick Brothers. Seems that anybody who is otherwise detached from VT, the first thing they think of when they see/hear VT is Vick.
Maybe some of the more recent suspensions, like Journell or Reavis?
I call bull-honkey. Useless and meaningless.
LOL Maryland is in the "Admirable" quadrant
I guess couch burning or changing conferences for a cash payout doesn't tarnish your image much.
Intuitively, I can say before and after looking at this chart that it would be nice to be Stanford.
Seeing us having fallen to the middle is sad. That said, Washington is way too far on the powerhouse and the admirable scale.
Washington is more of a powerhouse than Stanford, UCLA, Oregon, and USC? Huh?
Am I the only one reading this not as "VT is less than admirable", but as "VT is right smack dab in the middle"?
Probably an accurate reading of their perception.
Not of mine.
That's about what I thought. "Meh" about sums up how pretty much everyone outside Blacksburg views Tech right now. Add in the Vicks and we get pushed just south of the middle.
I feel like a horrible person for saying this, but I'm pretty sure Pitt got an "admirable" bump purely because of Conner's cancer thing. Good on them, I guess.
Alright, I'll bite
How in the fuck are we more embarrassing than Michigan, Ohio State, and Clemson? Oh, I know they're good programs, but some of the things they've done in recent years to get there have made even my skin crawl, and I've been on record of saying we'd be better off bending some of the recruiting rules to better ourselves for the future.
And I'm more than slightly appalled that Penn St isn't by far and away carrying the anchor for most embarrassing program. What UNC did was wrong, and outright academic fraud is really, really bad. And Ole Miss has recruiting violations for the rest of us. Baylor, no, they are very deserving of where they are because enabling rape nowadays is definitely really bad... But... Penn St's football culture covered up and enabled the ongoing rape of children for 30-40 years and then acts like they did nothing wrong while the evidence is still coming out. And then they announce they're going to honor the main enabler of it in 2 weeks.
How the fuck they aren't the most embarrassing program by a country mile is completely beyond me, and a complete insult to the severity of the crimes they let occur.
Yea, I don't know how Penn State isn't at the bottom.
1. It was a few years ago and they fired everybody.
2. Baylor happened, and happened recently.
3. UNC and Ole Miss don't even bother to attempt to appear to be making an effort to make things right, they just keep on cheatin' on cause the NCAA doesn't care.
Not sure how they consider Miami to be even close to being a "powerhouse" unless the data for this was formulated 20 years ago.
but 5 rings bruh!!!
Da U is back, baby! Da U invented swagger!
I would love to see the raw data used for this graphic and what years did that data come from? I think that could be very telling. I would expect VT to be higher up in the rankings.
When the methods quote "overall ick factor" as "data," the y-axis largely becomes irrelevant. The x-axis data would be interesting, though.
Wait..the Washington Huskies are a Powerhouse? The team that's less than a decade removed from winning 12 games in five seasons? The team whose best regular season since 2000 is finishing 8-4? Okay, yes, they've won some National Championships, but none since the Soviet Union broke up, and Miami*, rated significantly lower, has won a LOT since then. Hell, Colorado, who was last really good when UDub was, is (correctly) ravaged on the powerhouse scale.
I agree, I would LOVE to see the data supporting the X axis. And I'd be willing to lay $50 that one of the contributors to this graphic was a Husky. Unless a big piece of this is based on the "How Good Everyone Thinks They'll Be This Season", in which case I don't understand how da U, who will surely be BAK this season, and UNC, who are the country's greatest preseason team EVERY year, are not further out to the right than Bama.
*Not defending da U, just using them as an example. F Miami, as always.
Colorado won the Fulmer cup this year.
Honoring Joe Paterno at a football game should push Penn State back to the bottom.
If they mean Texas is admirable for how they make the more money than most NFL teams and yet play so poorly, then yes this graph makes complete sense.
I think they used a dart board to make this graph, and then went through and decided which school went with each dart in alphabetical order. By the time the got to the later schools alphabetically there were not many darts unpicked to choose from. This is the type of BS report you expect to see in the early offseason, when there is no football to write about. The WSJ is just trying to figure out to capitalize on the current excitement of CFB to get hits without having to say anything that would expose their lack of CFB knowledge.
They use my graphing skills...and probably math.....so yeah they are wrong.
To be honest, they used more "gut feel" than math.
Isn't that just common core math? Gut feeling?
That's how I Math.
How the fuck is Washington a powerhouse or Nebraska admirable?