Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 15yds4gibberish

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

15yds4gibberish's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • Dedicated
  • Conversation Starter
  • Very Popular
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. Ha! Brother, you flatter me way too much. The thread is pretty wide ranging, and I’m pretty sure I don’t have much to add that’s terribly insightful or new. The Steele Dossier has turned out to be a disinformation document (which some suspected pretty early on, and others did not). But the claim I see a lot of Trump supporters now trying to make is because the dossier is disinformation, the whole Russia investigation was a hoax – A leap not supported by the facts. The FBI investigation wasn’t opened because of the dossier (Per the IG report, the dossier didn’t even reach the FBI team until months after the investigation started). None of the findings in either the Muller Report or the report by the Senate Intelligence Committee present any claims from the dossier as evidence, and many of the issues brought up in those reports weren’t mentioned in the dossier at all. Debunking the Steel Dossier is not the same as debunking the larger story (many of the agreed upon facts about which @Atticus Finch/Frum documented at the top of page 5)
  2. So you're saying there's a chance...
  3. Maybe, but lately UofM hasn’t failed to miss an opportunity to fail…but O-line getting it done on that drive
  4. This could be a problem...I have hope! M Go Blue!
  5. Mine too, but we'll see. Times are tough when the best you can hope for is to play a perfect game and only lose by a couple scores...It's like this dystopian Hunger Games lottery to see who gets to be MD's 'bodies.'. 😉
  6. Couple weeks back, took my mom up to Napa Valley for lunch, wine tasting, and browsing. Stopped in a gallery in St Helena, and lo and behold there was @Cossacks. Apparently when he's not watching football and posting in the game day drink thread, he's painting self portraits and displaying them in wine country:
  7. @maxchoboian Way back in the day, when MNW played SLC, an author of a piece about the game wrote something that I kinda didn't want to believe at the time, but it stayed with me. He was a big MNW fan, but he had a lot of concerns about their rise to football prominence: "No, I’m worried because nothing could be less constructive for Northwestern—or any high school, for that matter—than to become a “national program.” After a decade following prep sports, I can say this with confidence: When a dynasty emerges in high-school sports, there’s probably something crooked going on." We'll see what happens here, but the claim has panned out more often than I would've wanted to guess back in 2007. https://slate.com/culture/2007/09/sex-scandals-stadium-sponsors-national-tv-and-more-reasons-to-boycott-big-time-high-school-football.html
  8. Might want to check your sources. Hawk Newsome is not affiliated with BLM and cannot speak for them. BLM had to issue a statement about this a year ago when Trump used Newsome as a mouthpiece. https://blacklivesmatter.com/for-immediate-release-statement-by-kailee-scales-managing-director-of-blm-global-network/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=qDLmX0t_Ah_Lv5Zkp_lnLcbVENBG3acPXrEkb0yE7YQ-1636815236-0-gaNycGzNCKU
  9. Well, we can certainly agree it isn't true anymore, and hasn't been for some time. Was there ever a time when all teams started the season at 0 in Calpreps? I believe the answer is yes, prior to 2007 teams in Calpreps started the season at 0, but Ned's communication skillz could use an algorithm adjustment themselves, and so this is not the hill I personally choose to die on. But here's why I think it once did. You'll see Ned make the claim made about starting at 0 toward the bottom of this link: "All teams start at 0. There is no bias at all- last year's stats or pre-season projections are not used as a starting point (again, see the one exception above)." Ned doesn't exactly say what the exception is, but one interpretation could be it's 11-man football itself (which is kinda the whole enchilada -- Like I say, Ned is a heck of a communicator🙄) calpreps.com Freeman Ratings . Here's another rating fixes entry from 2007 where toward the bottom Ned makes the claim: "After a team has played several games, the starting rating will be completely eliminated from the process and their rating will be just as it would have been under the old system." calpreps.com I'd like to actually see a season run in calpreps that uses starting ratings side by side with the same season that starts everyone at 0. It would be interesting to know how close the two really wind up being to evaluate the claim. (Note: It's useful to remember that starting all teams at 0 also means there is a built in assumption - The 0 rated team in every connected group is equivalent to every other 0 rated team in every other connected group -- Or, to put it another way, the 0 rated team in Texas is exactly the same as the 0 rated team in Rhode Island -- I'm not sure there's a good reason to believe that either...which is what leads us to regional weighting).
  10. @Cal 14, Always appreciate your posts. I wonder if when Ned says a preseason rating gets filtered out, he means something slightly different than what most of us commoners assume it means. I think Ned means that after each significant (non-gray) game a certain percentage of the pre-season rating is replaced. Get enough games, and you can say the pre-season rating gets filtered out. BUT, that isn't necessarily the same as saying if everybody started the season at 0, the teams would end up at the same rating as they wind up with by starting with a preseason rating. Take OLu (because we talked about them earlier this season). They are currently rated at 59.2 - Probably pretty close to about where they started the season. But if OLu and all of it's opponents all started the season 10 points lower, all those teams would have the same relative ranking to each other, the game scores would mean the same exact thing relatively speaking, but their ratings would be 10 points lower. In that scenario, OLu would be rated at 49.2, and it would all be internally consistent. As I understand it, a long time ago all teams started at 0. Has the model been run both ways lately - One starting with the preseason ratings, and one starting with everyone at 0? I wonder how far apart the two final results would be. This question is just a fancy way of asking how much regional weighting figures into the final result. Would be interested in seeing how much of a difference it makes (or if it makes none at all by the end of the season). I agree with this, but I've often wondered if it's used to perform a bit of slight of hand. Calpreps really does do a good job with their predictions. But to your point, those predictions are essentially based on a different Calpreps, much of which we can't see (aka the secret sauce). I'm really not sure it's entirely valid to suggest that the ability of Calpreps to pick games ('Calpreps 1') lends credence/justification for their rating of teams ('Calpreps 2'). In other words, 'Calpreps 1' may get 82% of their predictions correct (or whatever the number is), but those predictions are based on something different than the ratings of 'Calpreps 2', and therefore the ability to pick games isn't really an argument that justifies the ratings of Calpreps 2 (or at least not fully). But, I don't really know how much different CP1 is from CP2. Help me Obi Wan Kenobi!
  11. By the so-called 'reasoning' of this article, the title of this thread and the article itself, "The Left is Everything They Hate," actually means 'The Right is Everything they Hate.' 🙄
  • Create New...