Recent content by Old Man Mike

I like all this stuff Dale. (Whether some ______s blow your interesting graphs and questions off or not.) Army seems Old School Army BUT riding a 569 yard rushing game vs Bryant. They're probably "good" but not THAT good. I don't understand how you could have a big team (Cal) which is apparently...

OK, but the graph says (to me) that the because OLine is very close to the "average"line, it begs the question as to whether second team snaps = first team snaps. We could be the same kind of "average" that Alabama, LSU, and Iowa have -- which wouldn't sound terrible given our gelling...

Of course this sort of thing sounds like part of a SyFy movie (and therefore non-serious) but it's really not a joke. But it's been poorly introduced, in my opinion. It's complicated. But, just to throw one stone at it, here are a few thoughts: 1. If AI ends up in charge of critical systems...

...... actually means "swan" or "little swan", but ................ "Cygnus, the Swan." ...... also could be stretched to mean a little Sign..............." Signet, as a ring symbol." ......doesn't fit the narrative? (This guy seems to me to be dangerous.)

Tirade is a compilation of crazy blurting and a few discussables. The real quick take that this is generally crazy is that no points include the Defense. Teams have won titles with dominating defenses and OK-solid offenses. This person needs to get some perspective about football. Let's see how...

I love those graphs, Dale. Much fun --- all in my own head or not. Please keep doing them. Your suggestion (don't know if you were serious) is spot on for me, so TIFWIW is the mantra for me. (It will be exceptionally nice if any "objector" pays any attention to it, admittedly.)

Don't know why I bother (just trying to give the site a little addition now and then) but the statistical point is: we have graphs based upon essentially THREE data points. Three is lousy. It means that any collective of three having one outlier of any major sort (which early in a season is very...

Yeh, duh. But they also yell at the graph readers to begin coming to opinions about their teams (otherwise there'd be no incentive for the click creators to make them.) My post is to say, OK, fun, but nothing close to real yet.

It's why Jagusah was/is such a big deal, folks. Knapp and Craig will play like AAs. Black IS apparently going to be as advertised. So you take the Monster and put him at whichever spot the "other guy" is doing the least (my unpopular idea has been -- ultimate position or not -- at Tackle, and...

For me, the graphs are an interesting concept but are dependent upon data input as are all graphs. In my opinion, we're WAY to early to think that we have good data to create these. So -- I'd just view them as fantasy fun, and maybe a small element of what media-style people will be...

You can never identify visual film claims (especially modern ones) without a lot of context and metadata. Zero of that here. So if a UFO researcher was FORCED to say anything, he'd probably say that the leading hypothesis (of many) was drone activity. Within the "drone" category are...

Deep, substantial, profound players in the current national and military crises.

....... damm my autocorrect went bonkers on that post. Fortunately I re-read it. I had "Angela" trying to get better support at Syracuse; threw out "precise"-ness instead of a precis; and tried "tomato" our schedule stronger. Even at these crude levels AI is a pain in the ass.

The graph is highly assumptive but fun-ish nevertheless. It can be said to indicate whether your team is performing better accumulatively or worse than others. (A good half can raise a bad half.) The key line would be the diagonal line through the center point (I labeled it the "Waterline" ---...

Knapp has been fine. Both edges lacked contain consistently. Craig couldn't push the big DT. Knapp was the only OLineman to regularly reach any ground downfield. We got better later when they wore down. Sully was OK.