forensicbuzz
21st Century Throwback Dad
- Messages
- 9,201
- Location
- North Shore, Chicago
Maybe only 40 yards.
Defenseless player hit in the head, helmet to helmet.Targeting. Not crown of helmet, but I don't think it has to be in this instance. I can't remember all the rules.
BS no call.Defenseless player hit in the head, helmet to helmet.
Agree.What in the **** is targeting then??
No, I’m saying the top, middle, and bottom buckets aren’t the same size - both within the conference and between. Most years the top 4-6 teams in the SEC would be in the top bucket - maybe more now that they’ve added UTA and OU. They are really deep at the top. Aligning them is not as simple as matching the top 5, middle 5, and bottom 5 of each conference.I'm not sure what you are saying. It looks like you are equating the top 8 teams from the SEC with the top 8 teams from the ACC. I don't think the won-loss data over the past 27 years would be so lopsided if this were true. Keep in mind Texas/Oklahoma only account for 1 game of the 241 played.
SEC Top vs ACC Top: 21-12
SEC Middle vs ACC Middle: 14-6
SEC Bottom vs ACC Bottom: 18-14
SEC Top vs ACC Middle: 20-5
ACC Top vs SEC Middle: 18-14
SEC Top vs ACC Bottom: 16-0
ACC Top vs SEC Bottom: 17-5
Total Games: 241
Two cases of targeting:Targeting. Not crown of helmet, but I don't think it has to be in this instance. I can't remember all the rules.
They should have lost…but for the referees (again)Texas is not going to lose today.
You guys love some referee excuse for losing.They should have lost…but for the referees (again)
Don’t know that anyone loves it when some of the biggest sports stories end up being referee decisions rather than actual plays. Kind of sad really.You guys love some referee excuse for losing.
What we know is the result of the game with the blown call. What none of us knows is the result of the game with the correct call being made.You guys love some referee excuse for losing.
Not crown to crown. But I would have called it targeting.What we know is the result of the game with the blown call. What none of us knows is the result of the game with the correct call being made.
The contact was crown to crown. Maybe there's some postage stamp sized target we're all supposed to be focusing on that none of us are aware of. Honestly they need to get rid of holding also because it's a complete joke, worse than this targeting crap. Only difference is they do slow motion replays for targeting and even my wife could get the correct call if she cared to. Somehow people paid to make these calls fail at a rate that's mindboggling. The game's supposed to be about the game, not the zebra, but they're after their share of the pie just like everyone else & most are smart enough to make the call or swallow that whistle whichever best butters their own bread.
Targeting is pure opinion now. You can look at twenty plays where Targeting was reviewed and if you couldn’t tell the uniform or have known the outcome you would probably make the same final determination as was made at the game half the time.What we know is the result of the game with the blown call. What none of us knows is the result of the game with the correct call being made.
The contact was crown to crown. Maybe there's some postage stamp sized target we're all supposed to be focusing on that none of us are aware of. Honestly they need to get rid of holding also because it's a complete joke, worse than this targeting crap. Only difference is they do slow motion replays for targeting and even my wife could get the correct call if she cared to. Somehow people paid to make these calls fail at a rate that's mindboggling. The game's supposed to be about the game, not the zebra, but they're after their share of the pie just like everyone else & most are smart enough to make the call or swallow that whistle whichever best butters their own bread.
The problem is that helmet-to-helmet contact is a part of the game. They've changed to rules to basically make targeting an intentional act to injure or go above and beyond just tackling the guy with the ball. I think this is the right direction. Stop all the launching and head-hunting to try to knock someone out and the game gets safer. It's a game of collisions and p=mv. The bigger and faster they go, the more energy in the collision.Targeting is pure opinion now. You can look at twenty plays where Targeting was reviewed and if you couldn’t tell the uniform or have known the outcome you would probably make the same final determination as was made at the game half the time.
Targeting is a complete mess in college football. Fixing Targeting calls would be one of the best things the NCAA could actually do.
It doesn’t matter who I think the Top teams are. The data rated the teams Top, Middle, Bottom based on their won-loss conference record in a specific year. If every team finished 4-4 in a specific year, every team would be a Middle team that year. It doesn’t matter if the school’s name is Bama or Vandy. Most people would list FSU as a Top ACC team, but based on their won-loss record this year they were a Bottom team (and rightly so).No, I’m saying the top, middle, and bottom buckets aren’t the same size - both within the conference and between. Most years the top 4-6 teams in the SEC would be in the top bucket - maybe more now that they’ve added UTA and OU. They are really deep at the top. Aligning them is not as simple as matching the top 5, middle 5, and bottom 5 of each conference.
So who are these teams in the top bucket? Take the 6 top SEC teams along with the top 3-4 of the other three and you get 16-18 teams.
It does matter. BTW, it’s not the data, it’s the assumptions. The data is what it is. For example, they might assume 8 conference games per team and simply that 6-8 wins is top, 3-5 is middle, and 0-2 wins is bottom. Or, they may assume the buckets to consider conference finish divided into thirds regardless of conference record. This assumption gives you equal thirds.It doesn’t matter who I think the Top teams are. The data rated the teams Top, Middle, Bottom based on their won-loss conference record in a specific year. If every team finished 4-4 in a specific year, every team would be a Middle team that year. It doesn’t matter if the school’s name is Bama or Vandy. Most people would list FSU as a Top ACC team, but based on their won-loss record this year they were a Bottom team (and rightly so).
I said in a previous post that I wouldn’t use this type of data to fly to the moon, but I think it does a pretty good job painting “directional” type of perspective using actual won-loss data over a 27 year period.
Hmmm. It sure seems to me like they were more factual with the data whereas you are making assumptions. They were fairly consistent that Top teams were 6-2 or better; Middle teams were 5-3 or 4-4; Bottom Teams were 3-5 or worse. You might find one or two that don’t line up exactly, but this is pretty much how they categorized the Top, Middle and Bottom within a conference. You may disagree with the parameters, but they were consistent from year to year and across conferences.It does matter. BTW, it’s not the data, it’s the assumptions. The data is what it is. For example, they might assume 8 conference games per team and simply that 6-8 wins is top, 3-5 is middle, and 0-2 wins is bottom. Or, they may assume the buckets to consider conference finish divided into thirds regardless of conference record. This assumption gives you equal thirds.
However, they are not playing round robin and it may not be equal thirds. They may have a team with 4 conference losses, but by quirk of schedule lost closely to the top 4 teams. Or, they may have 7 teams with 3 or less conference losses. Those are both top bucket teams.
It offers another way to look at the data: how many teams do you have in each bucket?
My intuition leads me to the belief that the SEC is indeed typically stronger at the top than the other conferences, and that their top bucket has more teams, but that the number changes from year to year. I would probably look at this first, year by year - for all conferences, and then align the buckets with other conferences for comparison.
All research studies have assumptions. In fact, you have to state and discuss them in a formal report… because they matter.Hmmm. It sure seems to me like they were more factual with the data whereas you are making assumptions. They were fairly consistent that Top teams were 6-2 or better; Middle teams were 5-3 or 4-4; Bottom Teams were 3-5 or worse. You might find one or two that don’t line up exactly, but this is pretty much how they categorized the Top, Middle and Bottom within a conference. You may disagree with the parameters, but they were consistent from year to year and across conferences.
It looks like you want to massage the data based on “quirk of schedule, playing Top teams close,” etc. which in my opinion is more subjective in nature.