Practice #5

GT Man

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
898
The flat fact is that his recruiting has been VERY average -for whatever reason-maybe some of it is his personality
I think the PJ you see talking to the press is different from the PJ the players and recruits see.
 

Eric

Retired Co-Founder
Staff member
Messages
12,734
But if the recruiting is better than average - would not the record on the field be better than average?

Not by the star debate :)

USC - Rivals recruiting finish

2009 - 4
2010 - 1
2011 -4
2012 - 8
2013 - 13

Texas - Rivals recruiting finish

2009 - 5
2010 - 3
2011 - 3
2012 - 2
2013 - 24

Tennessee - Rivals recruiting finish

2009 - 10
2010 - 9
2011 - 13
2012 -17
2013 - 21
 

Boomergump

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,260
But if the recruiting is better than average - would not the record on the field be better than average?
That comment too is an opinion, specifically one that assumes a direct correlation between recruiting and on field success. Go ahead and express yourself. I am not in fear of it. I am just particular about differentiating between fact and opinion. Those lines are getting quite blurry in our society today, not to mention internet chat boards. It drives me crazy listening to politicians (and others) start a comment with "the fact of the matter...." and then go on an opinion rant.

Your opinions about recruiting are wonderful to have. Back them up with all of the factual evidence you can find and reasonable analysis of those facts you can muster.

Now, my rant is over. Continue...
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
587
That comment too is an opinion, specifically one that assumes a direct correlation between recruiting and on field success. Go ahead and express yourself. I am not in fear of it. I am just particular about differentiating between fact and opinion. Those lines are getting quite blurry in our society today, not to mention internet chat boards. It drives me crazy listening to politicians (and others) start a comment with "the fact of the matter...." and then go on an opinion rant.

Your opinions about recruiting are wonderful to have. Back them up with all of the factual evidence you can find and reasonable analysis of those facts you can muster.

Now, my rant is over. Continue...
This, right here, is why this board is so much better than every other cluster out there. Talking about our opinions is why we're here. Pretending our opinions are Recieved Truth Facts ends up in people talking past each other, contributing and learning nothing. Even if you are actually correct, that's just blind luck unless you understand and articulate the best reasons that you might be wrong.

And that doesn't even get into stuff like Boomer's film review posts.

Fact: George Burdell is 5'11" 200 lbs.
Opinion: George Burdell is too small to play nose tackle.

That might be a well founded opinion, but there's a fundamental difference in the kind of discussion you have with facts and opinions. The only thing you can say about a fact is that it's not founded- something like 'the website is lying about his weight' or 'that was last fall'. The opinion requires normative analysis- stuff like 'what should a nose tackle do? What attributes are critical to that performance?

We lay down facts as the basic reality around which we form an argument. If your audience doesn't agree with those facts, there can be no discussion until and unless you agree on what reality is. For example, if your audience is hallucinating and sees demons rising out of the gaping maw of hell on the field, he will never agree that that touchdown was awesome.

And we can have great discussions about opinions of all kinds. But not if you require that your audience agree with everything you're about to say before you say it. Then you might as well say nothing at all.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,580
That might be a well founded opinion, but there's a fundamental difference in the kind of discussion you have with facts and opinions. The only thing you can say about a fact is that it's not founded- something like 'the website is lying about his weight' or 'that was last fall'. The opinion requires normative analysis- stuff like 'what should a nose tackle do? What attributes are critical to that performance?

We lay down facts as the basic reality around which we form an argument. If your audience doesn't agree with those facts, there can be no discussion until and unless you agree on what reality is. For example, if your audience is hallucinating and sees demons rising out of the gaping maw of hell on the field, he will never agree that that touchdown was awesome.

And we can have great discussions about opinions of all kinds. But not if you require that your audience agree with everything you're about to say before you say it. Then you might as well say nothing at all.
You may not know it - I sure didn't until a day or so ago when I looked it up for another reason - but you are channeling David Hume! See:

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/hume - abstract.htm

Bet you didn't know you were a philosopher in disguise. A right good one to boot.
 
Top