forums

ESPN CHALK ARTICLE

Advertisement
I don’t like Cunningham’s accuracy in tight windows (good deep ball thrower though). If we settle down the chaos a tad and close those windows he will force the ball more than a few times
 
JD08 said:
Do you really think our road performance in the past is any indicator of our future?
Click to expand...

I'd say absolutely. Given the strength of the statistic relative to all games (which we're probably somewhere around .700 over that timeframe) it seems highly indicative of culture issues.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
I'd say absolutely. Given the strength of the statistic relative to all games (which we're probably somewhere around .700 over that timeframe) it seems highly indicative of culture issues.
Click to expand...
Then you'll never get over your past. The entire point of last season was TNM. We did that on D, now we need to do that on O.

No need to look backwards because that's not where we're headed.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
Then you'll never get over your past. The entire point of last season was TNM. We did that on D, now we need to do that on O.

No need to look backwards because that's not where we're headed.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely nothing true about that.

When I started working professionally in finance, one the very, very important phrases was "past performance does not indicate future results." While on a case by case basis this is true, on the whole, past performance is highly indicative of future results.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. Doesn't mean you'll "never get over your past." It means that you need to learn something from it.
 
Advertisement
CaneLife93 said:
Good question, how awkward would it be to get bumped lower or out of the rankings because teams who haven't played a down are now back in competition?
Click to expand...
Just imagining this Top 10 in the third week of October:

1. Alabama (5-0)
2. Ohio State (0-0)
3. Georgia (5-0)
4. Miami (6-0)
5. Oklahoma (6-0)
6. Penn State (0-0)
7. Clemson (5-1)
8. Michigan (0-0)
9. Oregon (0-0)
10. Texas (5-1)
 
CashMoneyCane said:
There's absolutely nothing true about that.

When I started working professionally in finance, one the very, very important phrases was "past performance does not indicate future results." While on a case by case basis this is true, on the whole, past performance is highly indicative of future results.

If you don't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. Doesn't mean you'll "never get over your past." It means that you need to learn something from it.
Click to expand...
There's nothing to learn from that statistic though. It's completely meaningless.
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
There's nothing to learn from that statistic though. It's completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

You would be right if we didn't have any access to data on our road games vs. unranked opponents OR home games, OR if the road results vs. unranked opponents OR our overall record was the same.

Then it would be statistically insignificant, because those results are aligned with results from outside of that data pool.

But without doing the research (because I really don't want to take the time), I'd wager pretty strongly that our records for the above are all better. So, in comparison, that stat indicates we're awful on the road vs. ranked teams. That means something.

Now, how you actually use that is a different story. But let's just say I'm not emotionally invested in either team, or I'm placing a wager based on extremely limited data. You read that stat... who do you think wins the game?

What I think you and others are missing here is that football stats are almost never coin flips (I think who wins kickoffs and fumble recoveries are the only ones even close). There are myriad factors that impact the results -- no different than our prolific history of playing awfully in cold weather. Hence, this stat is a strong predictive indicator, all other things being held equal. That last part it key, because very little else is equal except some of the players, some of the staff, and the colors on the unis.

But to call the stat meaningless is extremely myopic.
 
miamicanephins said:
I'll bet you the canes win, you in cash money?
Click to expand...

If you think I'm using that stat to say Miami doesn't win, you're far, far more clueless than I thought. And I NEVER, EVER bet against Miami on principle.

Look at it this way. Of the last 26 posts I've read from you, 23 have been stupid. Without reading your next post, what do you expect my perception will be as to whether it's going to be stupid or not?

Just like Miami football, until proven otherwise, the stat means something.
 
CashMoneyCane said:
You would be right if we didn't have any access to data on our road games vs. unranked opponents OR home games, OR if the road results vs. unranked opponents OR our overall record was the same.

Then it would be statistically insignificant, because those results are aligned with results from outside of that data pool.

But without doing the research (because I really don't want to take the time), I'd wager pretty strongly that our records for the above are all better. So, in comparison, that stat indicates we're awful on the road vs. ranked teams. That means something.

Now, how you actually use that is a different story. But let's just say I'm not emotionally invested in either team, or I'm placing a wager based on extremely limited data. You read that stat... who do you think wins the game?

What I think you and others are missing here is that football stats are almost never coin flips (I think who wins kickoffs and fumble recoveries are the only ones even close). There are myriad factors that impact the results -- no different than our prolific history of playing awfully in cold weather. Hence, this stat is a strong predictive indicator, all other things being held equal. That last part it key, because very little else is equal except some of the players, some of the staff, and the colors on the unis.

But to call the stat meaningless is extremely myopic.
Click to expand...
There is not a single part of the team from 2005, when that statistic comes from, that applies to this team. 2005 was chosen because that made the statistic more depressing. Why not from 2000 and make it 20 years?

Nobody picks a winner based on what happened 4 coaching staffs ago.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
If you think I'm using that stat to say Miami doesn't win, you're far, far more clueless than I thought. And I NEVER, EVER bet against Miami on principle.

Look at it this way. Of the last 26 posts I've read from you, 23 have been stupid. Without reading your next post, what do you expect my perception will be as to whether it's going to be stupid or not?

Just like Miami football, until proven otherwise, the stat means something.
Click to expand...
ccm.jpg
 
Advertisement
Back
Top