Utah State WR

#126
#126
Madmartigan said:
Is it like Winter coming?
Click to expand...

Sansa Stark is a ginger, so yes.

winter_is_coming___sansa_stark_by_evokenelenwe-d6efpo3.jpg
 
#129
#129
Slydell said:
I seem to remember us getting beaten one year by a less talented team using a WR as a QB.
Click to expand...

An exception to the rule, does not disprove the rule. Especially if the rule is that about 8 out of 10 times the more talented team wins.
 
#131
#131
#134
#134
Slydell said:
I seem to remember us getting beaten one year by a less talented team using a WR as a QB.
Click to expand...




True , but that isn't that hard to do when your qb and wr play to lose .

Matt Roark was a damn good high school qb at North Cobb , and his wide receiver coach at UK , just also happened to be his qb coach at North Cobb.... some guy named Tee
 
#136
#136
daj2576 said:
You may be right, you may be wrong. I can do nothing but caution you against doing what you are doing, especially if you are deriving how you view a football team from what is essentially an experienced guess.
Click to expand...
I am actually using YOUR formula for predictions without doing the precise math. Not only winners and losers but to a significant degree the margins will depend on talent as can be measured by "stars".

What I can say for sure is that, without that data, too much can be drawn from exceptions.
Click to expand...
Your whole scheme can fall on that same argument. You allow for 30% exceptions.

If UT only wins by 3 is it really a sign of bad things?
Click to expand...
That, or that result lies in that less probable portion in the universe of possibilities.... just like GSU beating UF.

Is 17 expecting too much with the inexperience on both lines? Who knows, but that one lone data point won't provide the answer.
Click to expand...
So now experience counts when normally you say it doesn't? Is a close game more likely to be lost than a blowout?
Again, how is your 17 point creation illustrative of anything beyond unfounded feelings, and good for anything beyond drawing conclusions from a terribly small data set?
Click to expand...

The same way you do. When the talent gap is great then two things are likely. One, that talented team will win. Two, the margin will usually be reflective of the degree of talent difference.

Funny you accuse me of being too subjective here but admit you have not looked into the correlation before saying there isn't one and "cautioning" me. You seem to hold some type of grudge though I am not exactly sure what I could have done to you.
 
#137
#137
Madmartigan said:
Is soul stealing like butt kicking? Never heard this expression before, is that a southern phrase?
Click to expand...

South Park is responsible for the saying that gingers have no souls. Actually, they're responsible for Americans using the word 'ginger' and adopting this very British point of view regarding redheads - apparently picking on redheads or what they call gingers is fairly common there and it ranges from jokes to bullying. Unfortunately, the intertubez popularized 'kick a ginger day' and there were some incidents here in the US where kids didn't realize this was a joke.

Now the saying and various takes on the 'gingers being souless' and 'soul stealing' is a fun internet meme and common in spoken word as well (I think the bullying aspect has died backed down as well as it's not really an established part of our culture the way it is in the UK). That said, I'm sure probably gets old if you're a redhead and you're hearing constantly or if you're a kid and other kids take it the point where they are actually bullying you over it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#140
#140
WoodsmanVol said:
I don't expect USU to be a walkover. I believe they will give us fits and then some. But then, after the mid to late third quarter, Tennessee Pride will start to manifest itself in earnest. Not the sausage but the orange hearts of the O&W clad players. Then the distant grumble of thunder will become a ground shaking rumble. The orange storm will arrive. Thunder shakes the ground, lightning sets the sky afire. Lane Hurd Pearson is up North and all Malone. A Young Wolf with a Pig at the Helm will leave no Croom for the Aggies who will gag. I'll tell you a truth. When lightning strikes, thunder follows.
storm-lightning_00404077.jpg
Click to expand...
That is the most beautiful thing I have ever read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#142
#142
sjt18 said:
I am actually using YOUR formula for predictions without doing the precise math. Not only winners and losers but to a significant degree the margins will depend on talent as can be measured by "stars".

Your whole scheme can fall on that same argument. You allow for 30% exceptions.

That, or that result lies in that less probable portion in the universe of possibilities.... just like GSU beating UF.

So now experience counts when normally you say it doesn't? Is a close game more likely to be lost than a blowout?

The same way you do. When the talent gap is great then two things are likely. One, that talented team will win. Two, the margin will usually be reflective of the degree of talent difference.

Funny you accuse me of being too subjective here but admit you have not looked into the correlation before saying there isn't one and "cautioning" me. You seem to hold some type of grudge though I am not exactly sure what I could have done to you.
Click to expand...

First, if you are using my calculations, formula, or findings, you might want to also listen to my conclusions.

Wins and losses are relatively stable, picking a score differential is much more complicated. That is why I can say that experience doesn't matter as much as raw talent for the 70% chance of a win, but might for the difference in score.

Not only have you perverted my findings, but you're twisting my statements. I didn't say I haven't looked at the score differentials as related to talent alone, I said I haven't done a complete and comprehensive study. My initial findings say that talent averages alone don't bear your conclusions out and I really hoped they would. There are other factors that do, when combined with the impact of talent, but that isn't something I can or should share here.

Having done the work myself I couldn't stand behind a 17 point benchmark for this game. I am cautioning you, repeatedly, against drawing conclusions in other people's work that aren't there.

I have no beef or grudge with you. But, if you are using my calculations to draw larger conclusions that arent born in the data, and are extremely vocal about it, I can only vocally oppose you for the benefit of others who are looking for data, lest they believe that your conclusions from these data are correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#144
#144
Vols410 said:
And they return only 3 offensive and 4 defensive starters.
Click to expand...

I've heard this number a bit, but it's not accurate. Here are players that logged starts last year that return.

Offense:

1 QB: Chuckie Keeton, 2. RB: Joe Hill, 3. Slot WR: JoJo Natson, 4. LT: Kevin Whimpey, 5. TE: Wyatt Houston 6. WR: Ronald Butler

Defense:

1. OLB: Kyler Fackrell 2. ILB: Nick Vigil (started at OLB last 1/2 of the season) 3. ILB Zack Vigil 4. NT Elvis Kamana-Matagi 5.DE: Jordan Nielsen 6. DE: Jordan Nielsen 7. SS Brian Suite
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#145
#145
daj2576 said:
First, if you are using my calculations, formula, or findings, you might want to also listen to my conclusions.

Wins and losses are relatively stable, picking a score differential is much more complicated. That is why I can say that experience doesn't matter as much as raw talent for the 70% chance of a win, but might for the difference in score.

Not only have you perverted my findings, but you're twisting my statements. I didn't say I haven't looked at the score differentials as related to talent alone, I said I haven't done a complete and comprehensive study. My initial findings say that talent averages alone don't bear your conclusions out and I really hoped they would. There are other factors that do, when combined with the impact of talent, but that isn't something I can or should share here.

Having done the work myself I couldn't stand behind a 17 point benchmark for this game. I am cautioning you, repeatedly, against drawing conclusions in other people's work that aren't there.

I have no beef or grudge with you. But, if you are using my calculations to draw larger conclusions that arent born in the data, and are extremely vocal about it, I can only vocally oppose you for the benefit of others who are looking for data, lest they believe that your conclusions from these data are correct.
Click to expand...
Would you mind posting your SEC recruiting strength numbers again?
 
#148
#148
daj2576 said:
First, if you are using my calculations, formula, or findings, you might want to also listen to my conclusions.

Wins and losses are relatively stable, picking a score differential is much more complicated. That is why I can say that experience doesn't matter as much as raw talent for the 70% chance of a win, but might for the difference in score.

Not only have you perverted my findings, but you're twisting my statements. I didn't say I haven't looked at the score differentials as related to talent alone, I said I haven't done a complete and comprehensive study. My initial findings say that talent averages alone don't bear your conclusions out and I really hoped they would. There are other factors that do, when combined with the impact of talent, but that isn't something I can or should share here.

Having done the work myself I couldn't stand behind a 17 point benchmark for this game. I am cautioning you, repeatedly, against drawing conclusions in other people's work that aren't there.

I have no beef or grudge with you. But, if you are using my calculations to draw larger conclusions that arent born in the data, and are extremely vocal about it, I can only vocally oppose you for the benefit of others who are looking for data, lest they believe that your conclusions from these data are correct.
Click to expand...

I love the analysis. This is likely listed somewhere, but what recruiting sites do you use to evaluate the "talent" variable? I know there can be some disparity in number of stars between: scout, yahoo, hudl, ESPN, etc.
 
#149
#149
Last edited:
#150
#150
Madmartigan said:
I love the analysis. This is likely listed somewhere, but what recruiting sites do you use to evaluate the "talent" variable? I know there can be some disparity in number of stars between: scout, yahoo, hudl, ESPN, etc.
Click to expand...

I believe he uses Rivals. They have the longest "good" track record. Scout nor ESPN have ever invested the same resources and have been pretty spotty. 247 may be the gold standard going forward but they don't have enough history yet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top