What did we learn? Northwestern Version

Mavric said:
Oh!  Look!  We were the program on the rise and they were the program in decline!



Aren't graphs fun?
Click to expand...


1) You didn't use the same metric as I. I used win percentage. Not total wins. 2) even with that, this graph shows two programs holding relatively steady across a random 8 year time span, during which each program hit plateaus in their overall trendline. No one measures long term trends in 8 year clips. I get that you're trying to play devils advocate and illustrate how data can be cherry picked and looked at differently, but dude that's a stretch and a half. 

 
Born N Bled Red said:
1) You didn't use the same metric as I. I used win percentage. Not total wins. 2) even with that, this graph shows two programs holding relatively steady across a random 8 year time span, during which each program hit plateaus in their overall trendline. No one measures long term trends in 8 year clips. I get that you're trying to play devils advocate and illustrate how data can be cherry picked and looked at differently, but dude that's a stretch and a half. 
Click to expand...


No it's not.  It's simply using a different frame of reference for what you want to look at.  And Nebraska was not "relatively steady" in that timeframe.  There was a 25-ish% increase.  You're just trying to semantic it because you want to say something different.  Same for saying it has to be long-term.  That's just what you want it to be that because that's the story you want to tell.  Going back several years and multiple coaching staffs is plenty to see if a program is on the rise or on the decline.  

 
Born N Bled Red said:
1) You didn't use the same metric as I. I used win percentage. Not total wins. 2) even with that, this graph shows two programs holding relatively steady across a random 8 year time span, during which each program hit plateaus in their overall trendline. No one measures long term trends in 8 year clips. I get that you're trying to play devils advocate and illustrate how data can be cherry picked and looked at differently, but dude that's a stretch and a half. 
Click to expand...


If you want to measure long-term trends by winning percentage, Clemson has been trending down since 1981 and Nebraska has been trending down since 1994.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
If you want to measure long-term trends by winning percentage, Clemson has been trending down since 1981 and Nebraska has been trending down since 1994.
Click to expand...


And because its going to snow this week, it certainly can't mean the earth is warming. - Its all good dude. This has already gone on too long for a joke that Clemson somehow stole our mojo. If you need a win, here you go, take it. I'll ship you a medal sometime. 

 
giphy.gif


 
Born N Bled Red said:
And because its going to snow this week, it certainly can't mean the earth is warming. - Its all good dude. This has already gone on too long for a joke that Clemson somehow stole our mojo. If you need a win, here you go, take it. I'll ship you a medal sometime. 
Click to expand...


Diversion.  Obfuscation.  Simple point up there and it's being mixed in with wheat straw after quoting it. 

But it's all good I guess.

I learned that our D can be tough through the whole game no matter what they threw or ran at us.  The awarded shirts of Black nature were apparently well earned.  Good job by our coaches. 

I also learned that our Heinrich guy is immature or some other mild word that recognizes his medium/high athletic abilities while noticing his opting for lesser actions at times on the field under duress.

 
This team is very much better than last year. Still not a great team. Defense is good. Offense is just in shambles, but at this point, it isn't entirely their fault, devastated by injuries.

 
While recognizing that he took a step back in his development against NW, I think people are not appreciating what Haarberg has done for this team: LEAD. He’s a leader and the team plays hard for him. With him under center, the team has improved from 0-2 to be 5-3. Those of you just concentrating on his faults kind of nauseate me.

Also, he would probably benefit from an actual QB Coach, which Nebraska does not have.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cheekygeek said:
While recognizing that he took a step back in his development against NW, I think people are not appreciating what Haarberg has done for this team: LEAD. He’s a leader and the team plays hard for him. With him under center, the team has improved from 0-2 to be 5-3. Those of you just concentrating on his faults kind of nauseate me.

Also, he would probably benefit from an actual QB Coach, which Nebraska does not have.
Click to expand...
Fantastic. We’ve already beat Purdue.  :nanalama
 

Agree. If Sims had shown he was clearly better, I would agree that he should play. But, he didn’t. 
 

So, if two QBs have shown they are equally bad, stick with the one that is winning games. And….that has nothing to do with one being from Nebraska and the other not. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top