Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/28/25 at 3:06 pm to 3down10
LSU could have hired Kiffin instead of Kelly, I don't see LSU ever going that direction with his antics no matter what he continues to do
Posted on 3/28/25 at 3:21 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
I know you're being sarcastic but I've never understood this knock. Why can he recruit transfers but not high school kids? The truth of the matter is that his resources are limited and he values experienced transfers over high school kids. Put him at a place like Ohio State or Oregon or Texas and I bet he'd be landing top 5 high school classes.
He recruited talent at UT but had some unforgivable misses Really the biggest problem we had with his recruiting (beyond the NCAA sanctions he racked up and NYT exposés) was that most of the players he recruited were problems and off the team almost as quickly as he was).
He’d do well enough with a budget imo.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 3:31 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
Yes Tennessee wants him back, per my sources..
His sources
Posted on 3/28/25 at 3:45 pm to 3down10
quote:
He's a great coach for Ole Miss, I don't think that's in question.
However, your stat is just wrong and lacks context.
They'd had 6 season with 10 wins. And the majority of history 13 games wasn't the norm. They've had way more seasons where they had 3 or less losses.
Take 1969 for example, they finished #8 in the AP while having an 8-3 record. 11 games - and that's with a bowl win.
They aren't Vandy.
Hence, winning percentage.
He's winning 71% of his games at a program that is around 55% lifetime.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:06 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Hence, winning percentage.
He's winning 71% of his games at a program that is around 55% lifetime.
Win % is a stupid stat.
And it has nothing to do with your claim that he is "excelling" in this era.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:11 pm to nicholastiger
quote:
LSU could have hired Kiffin instead of Kelly, I don't see LSU ever going that direction with his antics no matter what he continues to do
I think his maturity is off putting for a lot of teams and I can see where BK would be seen as the opposite of that.
I just don't think BK has that top gear. I don't see where he's making the adjustments and so forth. Sometimes he looks like a deer caught in the headlights.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:16 pm to theCAW
Fla. does not want Lane
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:17 pm to 3down10
quote:
Win % is a stupid stat.
And it has nothing to do with your claim that he is "excelling" in this era.
Yeah, who cares about winning?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:23 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Yeah, who cares about winning?
It's basically just an average, it doesn't provide context. It doesn't compare it to any real coach in history. It's just a mixture of the bad and good, as if all things were equal and then pretends like someone who is above that is by default great.
It's stupid and I'm sorry you got a shitty education.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:29 pm to GaryGator
quote:
Fla. does not want Lane
Dang. I hate that. Crap
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:29 pm to 3down10
quote:
It's basically just an average, it doesn't provide context. It doesn't compare it to any real coach in history. It's just a mixture of the bad and good, as if all things were equal and then pretends like someone who is above that is by default great.
It's stupid and I'm sorry you got a shitty education.
Weird, you were just using win percentage in an argument against BK the other day.
You're such a massive, dishonest, hypocrite.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:30 pm to 3down10
quote:
Alabama doesn't want him.
Bama still in denial that theyre about to experience the late 90s early 2000s all over again
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:36 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Weird, you were just using win percentage in an argument against BK the other day.
You're such a massive, dishonest, hypocrite.
I have no idea what BK's win% is.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:37 pm to 3down10
quote:
I have no idea what BK's win% is.
Are you saying you didn't use BK's win percentage at Notre Dame in an argument against him this week?
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:38 pm to swinetime
quote:
Bama still in denial that theyre about to experience the late 90s early 2000s all over again
Well as someone who did experience that, I'm not seeing anything similar to it.
Like, not even close.
But please, feel free to point out the similarities. Where are all the NCAA investigations? Where is the coach telling the NCAA to frick off? Where are we hiring not 1, but 2 coaches that were never a HC in their life?
I think more likely is you are in denial that Alabama isn't going to return to the years when were were constantly under sanctions by the NCAA.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:40 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
Are you saying you didn't use BK's win percentage at Notre Dame in an argument against him this week?
As usual you provide no context on what you are actually talking about.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:45 pm to 3down10
quote:
As usual you provide no context on what you are actually talking about.
What context is needed?
You use it one day and refer to it as a "stupid, fricking stat" on another.
This is indicative of an individual that forms their opinions based on their feelings and then they shape the facts to support their arguments.
Thus, they often contradict themselves.
You often project this accusation on me however my views usually stay the same where you're constantly contradicting yourself.
Posted on 3/28/25 at 4:55 pm to SidewalkTiger
quote:
What context is needed?
You use it one day and refer to it as a "stupid, fricking stat" on another.
This is indicative of an individual that forms their opinions based on their feelings and then they shape the facts to support their arguments.
Thus, they often contradict themselves.
You often project this accusation on me however my views usually stay the same where you're constantly contradicting yourself.
Context is everything when it comes to stats. That's why they have the expression there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Because people take statistics and provide them without context, or use them in bad ways and it ends up being terrible. You can manipulate and present stats without context and make all kinds of claims.
For example, you think comparing 71% vs the 55% average of Ole Miss history is ok to do. But you aren't comparing the 71% against any real coach. If you use the stats in that way to make an argument, then it's going to be dumb.
What is the worst SoS formula? One that is based on win%. Why? Because it has no context. What is context? Things like the strength of the teams they played and so on, because not all 10-3 teams are equal.
Do you think the Buffalo Bills were the best team of the late 80s and early 90s? Did anyone have a better win% than Oregon last year?
This post was edited on 3/28/25 at 4:57 pm
Posted on 3/28/25 at 5:25 pm to 3down10
quote:
Because people take statistics and provide them without context, or use them in bad ways and it ends up being terrible. You can manipulate and present stats without context and make all kinds of claims.
For example, you think comparing 71% vs the 55% average of Ole Miss history is ok to do. But you aren't comparing the 71% against any real coach. If you use the stats in that way to make an argument, then it's going to be dumb.
You did the exact same thing when you compared BK's win percentage at Notre Dame vs their historical win percentage, and not any real coach.
Please stop being a hypocrite and contradicting yourself.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News