Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 996128" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>There is a link to an On3 article in his post that ranks schools based on recruiting spending. However the On3 article links to an Athleticdirectoru article that is the source of the numbers <a href="https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/an-analysis-of-football-recruiting-costs/" target="_blank">https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/an-analysis-of-football-recruiting-costs/</a> The Athleticdirectoru article specifically says "while schools track the same types of expenses under the category of recruiting, the way they do their accounting could vary from school to school". The mutts are specifically quoted as saying that the numbers are skewed. Places like On3 "report" data and apply (or at least imply) significance to that data, while the data may or may not actually be significant. In this case, their source of the data specifically says that it might not be significant. My skeptical view of news and news sources doesn't allow me to rely on On3 as a source of data. I resort to checking their source of data to see if it actually matches. I don't trust On3's conclusions or editorial takes on their face.</p><p></p><p>It is further evidence of my belief that people will decide on a conclusion, then they will "find" "proof" that their conclusion is correct. I think that [USER=2957]@Vespidae[/USER] 's conclusion that programs that spend more money are more successful is reasonable in general. However, links to an article that links to a source, which specifically says that the data isn't accurate don't impress me as proof of that conclusion.</p><p></p><p>It is also a rabbit hole to the discussion. Whether the SEC gets unreasonable positive spin from the media in general and ESPN in particular is a very different question than whether the SEC spends a lot of money on athletics programs. Did the SEC get a team into the playoffs this year because the entire conference has been building football programs that are far better top-to-bottom than any other team in the universe? Did the media in general, and ESPN in particular highlight things positive to the SEC and ignore things negative to the SEC? Deflection and redirection seem to be the normal course of action for those who support the SEC.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 996128, member: 2426"] There is a link to an On3 article in his post that ranks schools based on recruiting spending. However the On3 article links to an Athleticdirectoru article that is the source of the numbers [URL]https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/an-analysis-of-football-recruiting-costs/[/URL] The Athleticdirectoru article specifically says "while schools track the same types of expenses under the category of recruiting, the way they do their accounting could vary from school to school". The mutts are specifically quoted as saying that the numbers are skewed. Places like On3 "report" data and apply (or at least imply) significance to that data, while the data may or may not actually be significant. In this case, their source of the data specifically says that it might not be significant. My skeptical view of news and news sources doesn't allow me to rely on On3 as a source of data. I resort to checking their source of data to see if it actually matches. I don't trust On3's conclusions or editorial takes on their face. It is further evidence of my belief that people will decide on a conclusion, then they will "find" "proof" that their conclusion is correct. I think that [USER=2957]@Vespidae[/USER] 's conclusion that programs that spend more money are more successful is reasonable in general. However, links to an article that links to a source, which specifically says that the data isn't accurate don't impress me as proof of that conclusion. It is also a rabbit hole to the discussion. Whether the SEC gets unreasonable positive spin from the media in general and ESPN in particular is a very different question than whether the SEC spends a lot of money on athletics programs. Did the SEC get a team into the playoffs this year because the entire conference has been building football programs that are far better top-to-bottom than any other team in the universe? Did the media in general, and ESPN in particular highlight things positive to the SEC and ignore things negative to the SEC? Deflection and redirection seem to be the normal course of action for those who support the SEC. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Justin Thomas wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top