Jump to content

Magus Ossis

Full Members
  • Posts

    2488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Magus Ossis

  1. Yeah I wanted him to be good strongly enough that I allowed my judgment to be clouded early on.
  2. Whom do you think you’re addressing? Empty set is empty. Chad, Brad, whoever— is that you?
  3. That is a young but bad man. He will hurt some folks before he leaves. Bite you as a pup and all.
  4. Make a 4-quadrant poster with representative scores, verbiage and/or graphics from the Ole Miss, Tenn, USCe, and Mizzou games.
  5. 60% ATS is good. I wonder what his rate would be including the FCS v FBS games (I know— can’t calc because the data aren’t entered into his system from before). If he fixes much of what is wrong with his model, he might be able to start influencing lines. He may already anyway.
  6. I wish you well, and am putting you on ignore. Apparently I don’t have sufficient grasp of facts or logic to offer you anything either.
  7. Straw man You have a belief which from the inside you seem unable to explain and from the outside it seems impossible to understand. When numbers contradict your arguments, the numbers don’t tell the story because X. When trends appear to contradict your theory, you have an alternate explanation. When you find that everyone is failing to understand the truth except you, there are two broad categories of explanation. (1) You are, compared to the graduate-level educated crowd in which you find yourself, uniquely perceptive, or (2) you are in error. Consider that even smart guys sometimes believe their own interpretations past when they should have been put aside. And that behavior (though not necessarily by particularly bright people) is a cardinal feature of aggy, SEC apologists, and BC of SP+ fame.
  8. So 7 Mack recruits went to the NFL after playing for CS, but the rate of making it to the league went down as CS coached Mack’s guys. You may not appreciate it, but you are making the case I was challenging you to refute.
  9. Here is a Link to a list of the ‘Horns on NFL rosters as of yesterday. The burden of proof is on him who would argue with the masses. Use that list to show that Charlie brought in a wave of NFL talent that meaningfully surpassed what had been here in the late Mack years. Or let it drop quietly.
  10. They used to be in the precursors to two of those leagues, didn’t they? edit and not the SEC or B1G
  11. BC/SP+: Texas should beat LaTech by 12 Vegas: Texas should beat LaTech by 21 Texas: hold my beer.
  12. No, I insist they were 8-4 in their OOC games
  13. B12 9-0 (9-0) 1 to go (OU) B1G 12-2 (12-2) PAC 8-3 (8-3) counting WSU as win and USC pending SEC 9-5 (8-4 OOC) ACC 7-6 (4-3) Louisville to go SEC 4th out of P5 in OOC win %
  14. 1. Eat dirt, SEC and fluffers 2. I’m through with any grudge I may have carried against Mack Love this win
  15. They’re saying “PRU-itt”
  16. If you find yourself wanting to use the word racist, or any variation thereof, please go post in CR. This thread is for patting ourselves on the back for firing our last HC and for chronicling his failures at USF.
  17. South Florida doesn’t have the athleticism to keep up with these Big 10 burners.
  18. This gives me an idea for some metrics to track. HFC win percent effect versus school historic average (overall, current P5, FBS, conference) and HFC NCAA major violation effect versus historic average. Edit: it would be interesting to see the coach effects factoring in something like Huck’s adjusted stats.
  19. Rebuttal: QB: Mond was easily the best QB on the field, and there were multiple SEC signal callers in the stadium. Jimbo is a QB whisperer. RB: Corbin gashed TxSt repeatedly, often actually gaining yards in the teeth of an defense that played its super bowl last night. OL: This is recognized as a key position any any team. Green, to pick one example, was so talented that he has been named a starter already. Mond’s Pocket was so clean that he was able to walk out after the game under his own power. TE: Clemson will be stuck playing the guessing game trying to game-plan for the ag’s Use of TEs as Jimbo brilliantly directed his offense to a blowout win without tipping his hand here. They pretty much decoyed at The top in-state SEC home stadium last night. WR: undeniable team strength. Abused the TxSt’s vaunted “golfers in the rough” recruits. DE: Lack of sacks doesn’t tell the story of how this unit unloaded on the ‘cats at roaring Kyle field. Did not allow enough time to make a sandwich on more than the most insignificant smattering of plays. DT: Another undeniable strength. JMad, Peevy, and co making redass ags remember how great the wrecking crew could be. With similar opponents and upgrades at a few surrounding positions, this D could wreck some shop. LB: Smart money says Buddy may be the best ag LB in decades if not ever. Feaster never publicly denied the well known fact that he chose SC to allow extra time to get ready for this bunch instead of staying at Clemson or transferring to his first choice at TxSt. DB: They don’t call A&M DBU for nothing. Leon beat out a handful of talented freshman for the starting S nod, and two different SEC starting corners faced that shocked TSU receiver core. Summary: Clemson better look out. Moral means good, and the ags’ victories are moral ones no doubt.
  20. Per 247, 40th ranked class, .8569 average. What makes you think he can't win titles with guys like that?
  21. One can argue about the point of models, but their general purpose is predictive. Again, are they more to approximate scores or identify which team will win? Many here likely feel that winning by 1, while less satisfying than by 21, is still winning. They likely take exception to the philosophy strongly implied by Herman's statement that "you only need to win by one," namely that shooting for marginal success is not an unnecessarily risky proposition. That said, the difference between winning by 1 and losing by 1 is much bigger than the difference between winning by 1 and winning by 11. People go crazy when a last-second FG lifts them from, say, down 24-25 to up 27-25. A lot of models don't much care. Going 6-6 with 6 comfortable wins and 6 razor-thin losses is not remotely as good an outcome as squeaking out an undefeated season. If those models seek to predict, e.g., whether Texas will play in (and perhaps win) important post-season games, then they were objectively failures in that regard last year. They appear on track to fail similarly this year. I don't think anyone here is arguing that Texas was as good as Clemson or Alabama last year (or now for that matter). Nor are people arguing that the models bear no relation to the system they seek to model and predict. Rather, especially with respect to SP+, the case has been made that (1) sound empirical scientific and statistical technique has not been used to develop the models, (2) this (or something) has resulted in some peculiar failings of the model-- of interest here because Texas is one of the teams whose winning it seems to predict least accurately, and (3) the author and advocate of the model has behaved in a manner to suggest that he both senses to a degree the need to improve his creation as well as that he refuses to concede publicly any of its deficiencies. To the contrary, he makes statements to suggest that the reality he tried to model was somehow failing to conform to his model rather than the converse. I think virtually all here would agree that to look like a title contender, Texas needs to stop losing to the Marylands of the world and to stop letting the Tulsas get back in the game; to suggest otherwise is to miss the point of the criticism leveled at BC and his SP+. Nota bene, however: more important than looking like a title contender is becoming one-- if Texas wins every game one the schedule by 1 point, they will be one. Who will bet me straight up on his predicted W/L total for Texas if I get the over? Any takers?
  22. Buy a burnt orange polo, watch some YouTube clips about Freddie Steinmark and Sam Ehlinger, drink that vodka in your left and the gin in your right, and tune in to the Texas game when you come to on Saturday.
  23. One more retard added to my ignore list
  24. Teams that win a lot, score a lot, etc can reasonably be expected to continue winning and scoring, all things being equal, as @sushihorn noted that BC predicts. His “model” is just data mining. It isn’t evil or wrong. As stated, though, he defends it as if it embodies some truth with which we are out of synch. We are merely a team with significant contribution from factors he ignores in his formula. His formula gets a few things right, even about us. It down rates us because Hager couldn’t get to the passer and because he’s been replaced. It downrates us because Strong was the highest losing percent coach we’ve ever had. It fails to penalize us for Floyd’s condition. It is a simplistic model that gets enough right to embolden its author to bleat publicly in defiance of its failings. Against the spread, it is roughly as insightful as just betting home dogs. BC has a platform which he uses, among other things, to take shots at us. We have a platform pit from which we Surls take a few in return.
×
×
  • Create New...