UNC in the Newspapers again....

Messages
2,077
That's not a well thought out comment.
Yeah, you could be right. I was trying to communicate that Jaybo, a Division I athlete at a skill position, stepped down to FCS and WAS NOT head and shoulders better than the players around him. We will know in a few months how our 85 compare to GSU's 85. Of course, they have moved up to the Premier League now , too.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,103
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I think it became obvious pretty quickly at which level Jaybo belonged, and that's not a knock. I don't know Georgia Southern's roster, but I'd be willing to bet that most likely none of the starters on Southern's team would supplant a GT starter. Maybe one of the offensive linemen was a late bloomer and could start for GT, but none of the skilled personnel.

You are right, we'll see in September. I anticipate that we'll beat Georgia Southern by 4-5 touchdowns. I wouldn't be surprised if we kept them out of the end zone all together, especially with a coaching change. Then again, I could be totally wrong (but I doubt it).
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,103
Location
North Shore, Chicago
As an expert in my field of practice, I find the title of that article misleading. The three experts quoted never said there were flaws in the findings. What they said was that the data may have been misinterpreted. They also stated that one of the evaluation criteria was not the best way to evaluate literacy.

This type of analysis is used all the time in legal arenas to discredit the work of an opposing expert. These three experts were provided a final report and asked to opine on the veracity of the findings and the methodology. Essentially, the "experts" hands were tied to the report provided and not given access to the raw data used by the original author. As an expert witness, I would probably respond like the second expert and indicate that I didn't have enough data to offer an opinion.

She (original author) may be right, may be wrong, or somewhere in the middle, but these three experts and this rebuttal article are merely a ploy by UNC to muddy the water and impugn the findings of the original author. It's about perception not truth.
 
Top