Jump to content

TheFlyingBoat

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheFlyingBoat

  1. 300 to me from you if he does better than 7-6 this season or 8-5 next season?
  2. It was OU's fault? Eh, good enough for me. Fuck the Sooners.
  3. Excellent. That should get us through the "will Herman be fired or not" nonsense we'll have to suffer the moment anything goes wrong over the course of the next year or so. Then we either know what will happen or we are blissfully released from our mortal coil.
  4. I'm sure that's part of it but Long is ass my dude. Do not hire.
  5. So you're telling me complete overhaul of defense is definitely needed, but the offense only needs improvements without a wholesale system change? Firing Meh and demoting Beck are all definitely needed changes and will definitely cause us to improve. If we could get a new OC that compliments Herman well we should be golden.
  6. So do we know anything or are we just headless chicken following other headless chicken masquerading as insiders for free and headless, clueless chicken that charge us for the pleasure?
  7. I was against Watson and Beck but am not against Ash (though would have preferred Odom). Square that circle.
  8. Name one. There are no current OCs that have an elite record of success at the P5 that is long unless they are a lifer at their school. Everyone else has about 2-3 good 5 years as an OC and then become a G5 HC.
  9. Did we check the AC in the dorm? Hearing from Coach O that's Bru's dorm room didn't have working AC.
  10. You know what I'll humor you. Care to show any of these supposed tweets?
  11. Sagarin is among the better predictors: http://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=18 They took 2nd straight up in the most recent full season. S&P+ has us at 9 when you apply Fremeau's implied loss calculation for an average team. Aggy is at 27 or something like that. Playing a ton of top 35 teams creates a hard schedule. I think 10 are within the top 55 of S&P+ and like 8 in the top 35 or something like that. Aggy played a very top heavy schedule and aggy lost the games they should have lost and then proceeded to play poorly against bottom feeders like Arkansas.
  12. Would you care to keep going down that list? I think there's more than 5 teams played by both teams
  13. He beat Bob Stoops and Lincoln Riley. He's beaten Patterson, Campbell, Gundy, Klieman, and the Wizard. He's beaten well coached teams before. I don't think he'll win here to due to match up reasons and due to coaching transitions, but this an overly reactionary and unjustifiable take that will likely devolve into a no true scotsman fallacy coming from you and a general sense of exasperation from me.
  14. Why? We knew they would make him an offer. It doesn't tell us numbers or anything we wouldn't have assumed to be true.
  15. Saying sexual assault is wrong isn't political, you Art Briles loving dipshit. Just because Jim Jordan covered systemic abuse of students at Ohio State and went into politics way later doesn't make criticizing him, Ohio State, or the actions by both in that context political.
  16. You literally said you don't remember sexual assault of students in a systemic manner. He posted the face of the scandal. Sure he could have chosen a picture of Jim Jordan, known sexual assault cover-upper, that wasn't him in Congress but instead in an Ohio State wrestling singlet, but let's be real no one wants to see that.
  17. Lol at you thinking acceptance rate is one of the most relevant criteria. In a hypothetical, let's say I created the greatest university in the world with the top faculty and greatest students in the world. Let's say my school has such a reputation that only the people that would get in apply. My acceptance rate is 100%. Let's say only those qualified for admittance supply. Let's say that results in admission rates dropping to 50%. Is my school better now despite the faculty, students, and buildings remaining the same? Let's say I invest in marketing and convince a bunch of kids to apply by paying College Board for the data on kids who took the SAT and send mailers to every kid on that list. Now let's say admissions rates drop to 5% as a result of a bunch of people who had no chance of getting in applying. Is my school better now somehow despite none of the factors that matter changing? In short, ceterus paribus, what is the value of the acceptance rate as a metric? Acceptance rate is the total yards given up on defense stat of college football. A stat of little importance that is overly harped on by those that know very little about football to the exclusion of better metrics. Hell acceptance rate is even worse because of how easily gamed it is. Now I'm sure you are going to argue that hypotheticals like that are stupid and that in the real world acceptance rates are a good analogue for sussing out quality. After all if a school is desirable and selective it must be good, right? Not so fast, my friend. Let's look at some real world examples of gaming the USNWR by good schools (don't even want to get into the chicanery weaker schools engage in). Did UChicago suddenly become a stronger school by switching to the CommonApp and driving up applications among those who didn't have a chance while the student body make up stayed roughly the same in terms of talent? Doubtful (some older alumni friends would say that it made the school worse by causing people with good scores who weren't the type of student to do the Uncommon App to get in, but w/e). Despite not improving the quality of the student body or the faculty, it elevated UChicago from a top 25 school in the 90s to a top 5 school today despite their faculty being just as good as it was 30 years ago and little change in the quality of students. But nevertheless, after that decision Chicago flew up the ranks for one main reason. It killed their acceptance rate, which 25 years ago was 50% (because you didn't apply to UChicago back then if you weren't the type of student to get admission and deal with the academic culture of Chicago anyways), but the students were no better than before. The faculty was no better. All that changed was marketing by Nondorf when he became head of admissions and reporting methodology by Zimmer when he became head of the university. If you think a change in marketing and making the school where fun went to die a little less bleak is worth jumping up from where it was to top 5, that's your prerogative. I'd argue the metrics that consistently said they were elite are more valuable. Those same metrics correctly establish UT as a 20-30 school in the country and a 30-40 school in the world. Fundamentally universities are research institutions that aim to teach the next generation of researchers (both in the sciences and the humanities) and changemakers. Unfortunately over time college has become more and more a vocational/pre-professional school (ironic, I know since I studied engineering) by another name, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still heavily judge universities based on their primary purpose which is research and the generation of future difference makers. That's what CWUR, ARWU, USNWR Global, THE, etc. try to measure and those all go in our favor. If I really wanted to I could cherry pick certain science rankings like Nature's that are purely research based and depending on how I play with the data I could get us into the top 10. An honest reading of Nature's data regarding our research output puts as at around 13 in the country. If you wanted to send UT to the top 30 in USWNR in 4 years it'd be pretty easy. Remove the cap on out of state/international students at the undergrad level (currently 90% of the incoming class must be Texans) and eliminate the top x% rule. That alone would change the international student metric and the SAT metric enough to be there. The student body might be a little bit better for metrics but I don't think it would be much better than in reality (we'd be basically doing the equivalent of taking a class full of Katy RBs if you want a college football analogy), in fact it would likely be worse if we got rid of the top X% rule (the student body may benefit from letting more non Texans in though, but in terms of meeting the needs of the state of Texas, the cap is pretty easily justifiable). This would be the case despite not changing the faculty at all. Gaming rankings is easy and I'm glad we don't do it at the expense of being a real school that serves Texas.
  18. Tbh I think he can turn it around. I knew plenty of people like him growing up that were very smart, got full of themselves and arrogant which caused them to make stupid mistakes everyone else could see but them. Most of them got back up and killed it after being humiliated. I could see Herman pulling it off if given one more year. Hiring Ash would put a damper on those hopes though.
  19. Yes, I agree with everything besides USC. USC isn't some glorious school. They game USNWR hard, whoop-de-doo. Ask yourself who are the great alumni or professors there that compare to ours? Berkeley, LA, and SD are all better than Texas with the first being tiers above, the second being a tier above, and the last being better but about on the same tier. Michigan is undeniably a tier above us as well, I agree. I do agree that you can win and be a good school though.
  20. I was talking about Berkeley there, thought I mentioned them by name, but I suppose not. I'll fix that. I think we're probably around 30-40 In the world and USNWR Global Rankings seems to agree (and correctly puts Wisconsin at 37 just behind us at 34 and Berkeley at 4). As does CWUR, which puts us at 31 (Wisconsin at 25! and Cal at 8). ARWU, which is a little more generous to foreign universities, has us at 40, which is good for 27 in the country. EDIT: Too late to fix apparently. For clarification, let me be clear when I was talking about a school being 3rd in Nobel Prizes I was talking about Berkeley as an example to show the private school bias in the USNWR national rankings (which isn't present in its global or program specific rankings)
  21. Yeah. Michigan is undeniably a better school than us. Florida is not. ND is not. USC is not. Wisconsin is probably about the same tier as us (seriously underrated school imo). Stanford is probably the second best school in the world, so yes they blow us out of the water.
×
×
  • Create New...