BYU: A legacy built on crappy SOS

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I'd tell them to shut the f up, but I don't see the relevance in how much money is spent. A big donor could be a "true blue fan" and tell someone not spending big bucks to stop complaining about issues (Haddow for example--I think he's done that a couple times).

I am not explaining myself very well.

Bottom line is if they have shit schedules year after year in the future, the season ticket holders will get tired and quit paying the prices they now pay.

Indy can pull all of the statistics he wants out of his ass to try and disprove that, but that is what will happen. Right now they haven't damaged the schedule enough to cause that. However, those who think they don't have to play the big boys as they have in the past and things will still be fine are just dreamin a dream.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, I feel some people are like the libs. Figuring out ways other people can pay for there jollies.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Bottom line is if they have shit schedules year after year in the future, the season ticket holders will get tired and quit paying the prices they now pay.

Indy can pull all of the statistics he wants out of his ass to try and disprove that, but that is what will happen.

Seriously, BYU71, stop turning every football post into one of three pet topics of yours. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of BYU fans' attitude towards other teams that are winning with lesser schedules.

I'm not talking about what BYU's future scheduling strategy should be.

I provided no statistics showing what home attendance is relative to quality of home game opponents.

I did not rip on LaVell.

I did not excuse Crowton.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Seriously, BYU71, stop turning every football post into one of three pet topics of yours. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of BYU fans' attitude towards other teams that are winning with lesser schedules.

I'm not talking about what BYU's future scheduling strategy should be.

I provided no statistics showing what home attendance is relative to quality of home game opponents.

I did not rip on LaVell.

I did not excuse Crowton.

"every football post" I would gladly accept the criticism if you wouldn't start by making a totally stupid statement. Why don't you go look up all the football posts and give me a statistical analysis on exactly how many of them I turn into one of my 3 (I actually have about 5) pet topics.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by BYU71

"every football post" I would gladly accept the criticism if you wouldn't start by making a totally stupid statement. Why don't you go look up all the football posts and give me a statistical analysis on exactly how many of them I turn into one of my 3 (I actually have about 5) pet topics.

P.S. You told me this was your thread and to take it somewhere else. I did. Why aren't you over there bringing up these complaints instead of here on your "pure" thread.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

P.S. You told me this was your thread and to take it somewhere else. I did. Why aren't you over there bringing up these complaints instead of here on your "pure" thread.

Because you continue to harp on this subject in this thread even after you created a new thread. I've left your new thread alone so you can rehash in peace over there.

[Judge Smails]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of BYU fans' attitude towards other teams that are winning with lesser schedules.

First of all if you're referring to me in any way, it's not hypocrisy on my part. I became a casual BYU fan circa 1991, became a passionate BYU fan about 1995. I never refer to 1984 unless someone else brings it up, and I tend to agree that championship was mythical due to SOS.

But as crappy as that 1984 schedule it was, it was eons better than what Hawaii's thrown together this year. It's seriously, not even close - can you at least admit that?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Tex

Maybe I'm not being statistically sensitive, but is the difference between .486 and .513 really that big? Is that considered statistically significant?

Indy, did you miss this question?

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Relevant, my friend, is a relative concept.

Crowton is not my relative, but he is irrelevant to this thread.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Because you continue to harp on this subject in this thread even after you created a new thread. I've left your new thread alone so you can rehash in peace over there.

I am answering questiongs. Should I respond to say Santos with, "Indy doesn't want me to post on this thread, would you please ask me the question on an alternate thread."

Sorry Indy, but I just don't communicate with anal people very well. It is all my fault.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indy, did you miss this question?



Crowton is not my relative, but he is irrelevant to this thread.

Maybe he missed it, but I can answer it. The principle of statistical significance does not apply here. In statistics you compute statistical significance when you are dealing with a representative sample of a larger whole (ie., surveying 400 people to determine what the whole population must look like) to see if the difference observed between two subsets of that sample (or from one sample to another) is a real difference or is due to sampling error. Indy has supplied the entire population in this case, so statistical significance is irrelevant. Make sense? Whether the difference in winning percentage is important or not here is a matter of opinion. No need to compute whether it's a real difference or if it's due to sampling error. We can say with 100% confidence that it is what it is because we're dealing with the whole and not samples of the whole.

[Indy Coug]

Here's one way to look at it: after 1,400 at bats, see how long it takes to raise your batting average from .486 to .513.