SonOfBuckeye's picture

SonOfBuckeye


MEMBER SINCE   September 09, 2010

Favorites

  • COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYER: Kenny Guiton
  • COLLEGE BASKETBALL PLAYER: Bobby Hurley

Recent Activity

Comment 23 minutes ago

Michigan deserves a coach who won't say their name. I support the move on sole condition that Urban vows never to break this tradition.

Comment 28 Jul 2019

Sorta like Carlos Hyde with WR skills.

Have hated the Cowboys my entire life, but I revere Emmitt Smith. If his son lives up to your description, he'd be my favorite recruit in this class.

Comment 28 Jul 2019

It's like there's some invisible "dark matter" that exerts a freakishly strong gravitational pull on recruits. Maybe scientists will one day help sports journalists figure out what it could be.

(Seriously, tho, the funniest thing about college football "journalism" is the silent pretense, shared by most every site, that payment negotiations don't affect these decisions. I don't begrudge players and their families one penny of these earnings. They were just born into this system and didn't make the rules. But it's funny that virtually no one will even try to report on the elephant in the room because "then I would lose access!" PS: Who knows specifically what's happening in Bijan's case. Maybe he just realized the weather will be a lot nicer in Austin.)

Comment 23 Jul 2019

If Gee Scott stays at #26 overall, then he will eventually get his 5th star. 247 always ranks at least 26 players as 5-star recruits by the time the site publishes it's final evaluation (going back to 2000).

Comment 17 Jul 2019

Raleigh, I agree it's a stretch to blame jbook, but it was mistake for him to describe Milton's post-OSU visits elsewhere as practically just a formality. A lot of these kids dislike it when recruiting writers take a player's commitment for granted long before he's ready to announce. Again, not jbook's fault, but still a bit presumptuous the way he wrote about it.

Edit: Good point about the different response to Kipp Adams.

Comment 24 Jun 2019

"After a steady decline through the 1990s, the annual number of homicides zigzagged before resuming a decline in 2007, falling from 16,929 that year to an estimated 14,722 in 2010, according to FBI crime data. At the same time, medical data and other surveys in the U.S. show a rising number of serious injuries from assaults with guns and knives. The estimated number of people wounded seriously enough by gunshots to require a hospital stay, rather than treatment and release, rose 47% to 30,759 in 2011 from 20,844 in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program."

- WSJ 12/8/2012

I don't know enough to evaluate this, but thought it's worth adding because of stxbuck's comment about improvements in emergency medicine.

Comment 21 Jun 2019

Crime spiked up in the 70's and 80's and the mass incarceration was (in part) a response to that 'bad behavior'.  Sure, it may have helped in bringing the crime rate down, but that doesn't argue for good behavior in the past, rather the opposite.

The violent crime rate today is about the same as it was in 1970, but the percentage of Americans in prison is something like 5x higher than it was then. This suggests to me that we've constrained the amount of social misbehavior we see around us by radically increasing the incarceration rate. You may disagree, but I'd be surprised if you do.

Comment 21 Jun 2019

Take a look at the murder stats for the years the brady bunch was on vs. today.  Adjust for population if you really want to get a dim view of that halcyon time period.

Adult behavior was better back then. Crime rates didn't drop because behavior improved. They dropped because we started locking up a gigantic percentage of the population. The numbers were completely unprecedented in U.S. history and still dwarf incarceration stats in the rest of the developed world.

Comment 18 May 2019

Well now, don't we have an inflated opinion of self.  I know I do, and I think most posters here, usually direct our comments as a response TO someone.  Sort of an on-line conversation.  Trying to prove how smart and eriudite you are to thrid parties through your posts is kind of sad.

I comment in just a tiny fraction of threads I read because I usually don't have a confident enough opinion to think it's worth adding my 2 cents. But I often learn or have my point of view altered in surprising ways by reading other people's arguments. If this experience is foreign to you, that's kind of sad.

Comment 18 May 2019

It’s just 300 comments of arguments and nobody changes minds, we just argue.

You have unrealistic expectations about how arguments should work. The point isn't to persuade the other guy in real time; vanity and ego usually stop people from seeing they're wrong in the heat of the moment. The point is to make an impression on observers who are open to different points of view. It's useful for them to see advocates tear into an issue from various sides.

Comment 08 May 2019

"[W]illing suspension of disbelief" ... does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.
- Tolkien

The problem with GoT's last few seasons is that events seem less a function of the internal logic of the world and its characters and more a product of the writers thinking in ad hoc fashion, "wouldn't it be cool if ..." The stories now feel clumsy in a way that constantly reminds me the writers are just offstage pulling the strings. It shatters the effect they want to create.

Comment 22 Apr 2019

We tried a similar study by using data from NFL.com and other websites to find data on QBs drafted between 2000 and 2004. ... We chose QBs because that position requires the decision-making and problem solving skills that aptitude tests are supposed to measure, and as productivity metrics we chose yards passing and number of TDs thrown in the first four years (four years is the average length of an NFL player's career.)

If you look at the data for all 61 QBs, there is only a fairly weak correlation between aptitude and passing yards (r=.19) and TDs thrown (r=.20) But we made a plot of the test scores and the passing yards and saw that the story was much more complicated than that. As it turns out, there does appear to be a strong association between test score and performance (yds thrown)--you just don't see it until you look at QBs who threw for 1000 or more yards ...

... [F]or this sample, the QBs who scored below the median Wonderlic score (for QBs) of 27 averaged 5,202 passing yards and 31.2 TDs over their first four years, whereas those scoring above the median averaged 6,570 yards and 40.8 TDs over the same period. Seems like the cognitive measure might be worth something after all!

- The Wonderlic as a Predictor of Performance in the NFL