Search results

Ok. Thanks. Should've screamed louder I guess.

Always amusing when people don't understand "analytics". There are like 4-5 things wrong with those questions. But you seem pretty committed to continuing to be ignorant, so it's not worth my time to answer them.

I have to imagine you are the CIS all-time leader in strawmen built and missed points.

Got it. So you agree that you are not what your record says you are. Thank you

It matters for predicting future results, as you admitted, and which is what this entire thread is about LOL.

I don't understand. 1) You said "you are what your record says you are". 2) ND had the best record, so ND was the best team. Either both of those things are true, or neither.

I'll be happy to spare you logic and naunced thinking. There's nothing wrong with your consumption of sports being based on simplicity - wins and losses and nothing else. It doesn't reflect the reality of the game, but it doesn't have to. It's just a game. I prefer to learn more about what I am...

Analytics have proven that winning close games is not a skill. It is basically random. Good teams win close games about 50% of the time. They win blowouts >80% of the time (i.e. they blow teams out and rarely get blown out). Correct, we should have won the VT game, as well as the UNC game. We...

So you can say "we were what our record says we were". I don't necessarily agree, but that's not what this thread is about. The topic of this thread is that our team is not going to turn a corner and all of a sudden improve, and one of the arguments given was "that we are what our record says...

Absolutely 100% false. This is an old school cliche that has been disproven repeatedly. Modern analytics have completely disproven it, but all you need is common sense to know that you are not what your record says you are. Was the ND team that rolled into the title game vs. Bama really better...