Hokieshibe's Recent Comments
I looked at the numbers myself, and there really is no discernible pattern between pre and post Western Michigan. He was roughly ~5-6 yd/s attempt against ECU and an OSU, while over 7 against GT. He was ~6 yds against UNC and Pitt (higher against UNC, but they're terrible), and alternated between stinkers and decent showings the rest of the way... I'm going to see if I can normalize for defenses and find a trend.
Huh, so his yds/attempt didn't drop when he reined in the picks? I sort of just assumed that it did, because the offense really stagnated sometime around then.
Something else that might be neat to look at is attempts/game - if that plummeted, then we know that the drop in picks was likely a playcalling adjustment instead of anything the player did.
Nice plots, btw. I love this stuff.
I'm not sure QB Rating is an effective measure of performance drop-off. QB Rating is lowered when you throw picks, so when he reduced his interception total, his rating should have improved (assuming the rest of his performance stayed the same). The fact that it didn't means that after improving his interception rate, he reduced his performance in other areas to offset the lower turnover ratio.
Yds/game, TDs/game and yds/attempt might be more enlightening if you've got them.
I was meaning the John J, but the Brothers is pretty good too. Where in Fredericksburg are you? I'm South Stafford, myself.
Seconded. I was just about to suggest this one myself.
Awesome. Need some serious line help
I'm really not sure why we're surprised. This is always the pattern, guys. Consistently, every single time.
Ok, but the NCAA can't go back and undo all the fun you had getting there. And I think it's toothless enough that it'll never invalidate a championship anyhow.
Say the NCAA swoops into Auburn tomorrow and removes the Cam Newton trophy for paying Cam (not that they will, but just for argument's sake, lets say they do). Do you think Auburn fans will just forget about that season? Do you think that'd color their feelings about that season? No way. They'll still count it, because it still happened, and no amount of NCAA white-washing can remove something that happened.
See this was my problem from the beginning. This is why you never embellish like this article did. Rape is heinous enough. The facts are bad enough. They never needed to go so over the top to try and shock us and get shares/page-views like they did. By falsifying or embellishing the story to make it more shocking they ensured more eyeballs saw it, but they also undermined the message.
Agreed. I guess I just didn't like the article. Tried too hard to shock me, when the facts alone would have been sufficient.
At the end of the day, they are CHOOSING to go through with it. They may be socially pressured, sure, but they aren't being attacked in a dark room and held down. I'm not saying I approve, I'm just saying we're comparing apples and oranges here.
There's a big difference between that, which although pretty gross is consensual, and organized gang-rape of an unsuspecting girl.
She smiled at her date, whom we'll call Drew
they called each other nicknames like Armpit and Blanket
Minutes later, her three best friends on campus two boys and a girl (whose names are changed) arrived to find Jackie on a nearby street corner, shaking
The only thing they definitively say is that it occurred sometime in 2012 (presumably in the Fall, while they were rushing) and the name of the frat.
Look, I'm not saying there wasn't a girl raped by the frat, and I'm not saying this is ok by any means. I just think the author "spiced" up the event to make it more shocking to get us talking about it. That's why they lead off with it - to catch your attention. And I think that keeps us from being able to have a reasonable discussion on the topic - it's all just pitchforks and anger. Just my opinion.
They didn't use any quotes, names or dates. That (and the severity of the claims) is why I doubted its veracity.
I guess I'm just naive, then. Seems unfathomable to me.
I'm not questioning an accuser here, because there isn't an accuser. I'm questioning journalistic integrity, because I've seen a lot of cases of journalists in the internet age rushing/failing to fact check/fabricating media for page hits.
If a girl said to me that she had been gang-raped at a frat house, I would believe it. If a journalist told me he had a story about this girl who had been gang-raped at a frat house, but then her friends told her to hush it up, I would be less inclined to believe. That's all, I guess.
I think turning down people for how they dress/not having enough money/whatever other snobby stuff they choose to discriminate with is a very different ballgame from choosing not to seek help for someone standing right there sobbing and bleeding.
I also think that institutionalized secret gang rape is a rediculous proposition. No way word about that doesn't get out. Again, not saying rape isn't a problem in our society (and college campuses in particular). Just that I don't think Rolling Stone is above making up (or at least wildly embellishing) a juicy story for page views to lead off an article about people trying to combat these problems in order to get page-views.
Is this article real? By that, I mean, did these events really happen like that? It sounds really sensationalized to me. I mean, what kinds of friends stand around someone who was just raped and debate the impact it will have on their social lives? Have you ever met anyone that shallow? It's like poorly written characters in a book written to scare teenagers. And has anyone ever heard of a frat that REQUIREs its pledges to take part in a gang-rape? How does that keep going for years without it blowing up? How have none of the victims or the washed out pledges gone to the police? It just seems absurd to me.
I'm not saying something really bad didn't happen, or that rape isn't a problem... I just question the authenticity of the article. It seems too extreme to be believable. Maybe things really are that bad, and I'm just oblivious.
Because talk is cheap, and it's easy to make a promise to keep a star player around and happy in the event that Barret doesn't work out and this year is a rough one. I really doubt Miller ever starts for OSU again - the promise was just to keep his options available.
I think they're just as restricted as undergrads, as far as transfers go. Didn't Brewer come in on a similar program? I thought he had wanted to go to a Big12 school (one of the Texases, specifically), but the TT coaching staff wouldn't let him. So, I think anOSU coaching staff could similarly restrict him from going to wherever they don't want him to go.
it didn't matter - in college the clock only stops on an OOB within 2 min, right?
I think head coaches being good at recruiting is wildly over-blown. Particularly after reading that bagman article that came out a few years ago.
Yeah, I know what you meant. The whole recruiting thing just seems so sleezy sometimes, though. It's my least favorite part of college athletics.
So here's something I threw together:
I wanted to see if maybe by normalizing against that defense's avg allowed completion %, passing yds/game and yds/attempt, some sort of pattern would emerge. Above 1 means you're doing better than the average team against that D. Below 1 means you're worse. Sadly, no pattern emerges, although it does shine a light on just how bad we were a few times...