How is it Mathematically impossible?It's now TO ahead 45-38. Again, mathematically impossible.
I'm just baffled by this.
It's not impossible - that was a poor choice of words. It's just highly improbable.How is it Mathematically impossible?It's now TO ahead 45-38. Again, mathematically impossible.
I'm just baffled by this.
So the first time I noticed the votes the percentages were about 51-38. I'm guesstimating there were about 10,000 votes because for these numbers that's far simpler. TO had around 51% of the votes and Bear had around 38%-ish percent. Then over the next few days TO's percentage shrank, but Bear's percentage stayed relatively the same (20,000). Then it got really tight (30,000), and over the last few days it's gone from TO having a huge lead in percentage to Bear catching TO (35,000) back to TO jumping WAY out in front (40,000).10,000 votes5,100 51%
3,800 38%
20,000 votes
9,000 45%
7,600 38%
30,000 votes (sometime around last weekend)
11,400 38%
12,300 41%
35,000 votes (this was the evening of 12/3 - the morning of 12/4)
13,650 39%
14,350 41%
40,000 votes (today)
19,600 49%
14,400 36%
CHEATERS! IS THIS HOW OSBORNE WON HIS GAMES.... BY CHEATING?? MACRO (CHEAT) ALL YOU WANT BUT WHO IS THE NCAA FOOTBALL COACH OF THE YEAR AWARD NAMED IN HONOR OF? PAUL "BEAR" BRYANT
CHEATERS! IS THIS HOW OSBORNE WON HIS GAMES.... BY CHEATING?? MACRO (CHEAT) ALL YOU WANT BUT WHO IS THE NCAA FOOTBALL COACH OF THE YEAR AWARD NAMED IN HONOR OF? PAUL "BEAR" BRYANT
CHEATERS! IS THIS HOW OSBORNE WON HIS GAMES.... BY CHEATING?? MACRO (CHEAT) ALL YOU WANT BUT WHO IS THE NCAA FOOTBALL COACH OF THE YEAR AWARD NAMED IN HONOR OF? PAUL "BEAR" BRYANT
Don't underestimate the power of ESPN...At last check it's 50-36 in favor of TO.
I know I said this before, but it bears repeating - at this stage, it has to be a lock for Osborne. There's almost no way he can be beaten. If there are 50,000 votes (and again, that's a LOW estimate) he must be up by 7,000 votes. This thing ends in 24 hours. There's NO WAY he can be overtaken in that amount of time.
CHEATERS! IS THIS HOW OSBORNE WON HIS GAMES.... BY CHEATING?? MACRO (CHEAT) ALL YOU WANT BUT WHO IS THE NCAA FOOTBALL COACH OF THE YEAR AWARD NAMED IN HONOR OF? PAUL "BEAR" BRYANT
A) the macros don't work. ESPN takes ONE VOTE per ISP per day. So even if anyone was trying to cheat, it wouldn't work.
B ) See my post directly above yours, Sparky. Whether you, I or the guy down the street wants to cheat is irrelevant - ESPN is screwing with the numbers on their own anyway.
C) At the end of the day ESPN and some doofus poll doesn't determine who the "Best College Coach of ALL TIME" is - you and I and the rest of the real fans do. We all know that Bear Bryant and Tom Osborne are right up there in the top five, probably the top two. Who is #1 and who is #2? Who knows? Who cares? Anyone who follows college football and thinks that either is undeserving of the discussion is an idiot anyway.
Much respect to 'Bama and 'Bama fans and Bear Bryant. I'm sure you feel the same about TO and Nebraska.
D) Seriously - don't stress about this. If TO wins this, are you really going to respect Bear Bryant any less? If Bryant wins, I'm not going to love TO any less.
I assume you checked, so you know they have no such verification? I did not, I just took the word of a guy who posted here earlier... and I have no way of verifying.The ESPN site has no such vote verification. If it did there would be absolutely no swing like there was when Bear took the lead or like there was for TO last night.
Your estimation in the 50's of thousands of votes is not only WAY LOW, its off by an order of magnitude or two. The reason you don't see anything happening dumping 50-50000 votes in has nothing to do with the espn site. Fact is there are so many votes there that a small amount like that won't even move the scales let alone tip them at this point.
My estimation puts the vote count at probably somewhere around or slightly under 20 million votes Today... with somewhere around 2 to 2.5 million votes going into yesterday's swing in the poll.I assume you checked, so you know they have no such verification? I did not, I just took the word of a guy who posted here earlier... and I have no way of verifying.The ESPN site has no such vote verification. If it did there would be absolutely no swing like there was when Bear took the lead or like there was for TO last night.
Your estimation in the 50's of thousands of votes is not only WAY LOW, its off by an order of magnitude or two. The reason you don't see anything happening dumping 50-50000 votes in has nothing to do with the espn site. Fact is there are so many votes there that a small amount like that won't even move the scales let alone tip them at this point.
I'm fully willing to believe you, and if you are correct that only confirms what I've been saying all along - this "poll" is a joke. I used 10K - 50K as low-number examples because they're easier to type and grasp. I fully believe that there are millions of votes, if not tens of millions, simply because this is how many votes typically come in during these "polls."
So assuming there are 50 million votes, not 50 thousand, that only lends further credence to the fact that it is improbable - nay, nigh on impossible - for there to have been a swing of no less than 15% in the past 36 hours, and it just about proves that ESPN has been screwing around with the percentages they display.