- Thread starter
- #1
Auburn is listed as one of the worst teams for the money = Fail
Auburn only had one truly bad year 2011 we went to the Chik Fl a which is decent.It's only goes back 3 years. And aside from this year, it's been pretty bad in that time. It even mentions that this year takes a good bit of the umph off it.
Cheese Dick was a waste of money, don't see how anyone can argue that. It's obvious that Gus was the real factor behind 2010.
Auburn only had one truly bad year 2011 we went to the Chik Fl a which is decent.
Chizik was horrible but he did bring in Gus and that alone was probably worth the investment.
Gus was definitely the factor it sure wasn't Ted Roof.
Study is flawed.
Let's put it this way:If Auburn was getting what it paid for, then Gene would still be there.
/discussion
At some point based solely on the concept of probability you should be able to post something intelligent....we just might have to wait years for it to happen.Forbes is continually putting out these flawed studies just to piss Barner Fife off. What's wrong wid' 'em?
Let's put it this way:
2010 National Championship
2011 Solid Bowl
2012 Worst season in school history
2013 Playing for national championship
How many schools would kill for that and gladly write the check and then some?
Think Texas would trade?
Oklahoma?
Michigan?
Oregon?
Standford?
USC?
Georgia?
Penn State?
Ohio State?
Miami?
FSU?
Florida?
Miami?
Clemson?
Tennessee?
LSU?
I think Alabama is the only school in the country that wouldn't make the trade.
I understand what he used as a sample for his study however he should have been smart enough to realize the entire CFB world would trade with Auburn with just one exception. That makes his premise of a "bad investment" laughable. Personally once the data came to the conclusions he reached I would have modified it. Too not do so just makes him look silly even if the numbers are correct.It doesn't take into account 2010, just the past 3 years.
Those other schools don't spend as much as Auburn.
At some point based solely on the concept of probability you should be able to post something intelligent....we just might have to wait years for it to happen.
So calling the Forbes article flawed with nothing to back yourself up with is intelligent. Gotcha'
Read I'm backing my statement up fine.
Now believing what you read when you know it is wrong just because it makes you feel good is unintelligent so your streak won't end today I'm guessing.
But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.You just admitted in your previous post his numbers are correct. 2010 is excluded.
But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.
The author kept Auburn because it sensationalized his article and made it more interesting to a greater number of readers. This is why you should always view the media with a skeptical eye.
But it shouldn't have been because it leads to an erroneous conclusion. The last step when pulling a sample of data is to review the conclusion and if that conclusion has anomalies that seem odd then you increase the sample size and re-test. This is true for all sampling.
The author kept Auburn because it sensationalized his article and made it more interesting to a greater number of readers. This is why you should always view the media with a skeptical eye.
My feelings aren't hurt I just find the study flawed and if you were smart enough to understand why you would agree.Call Forbes then and cry about how stupid their writer is. His article. His parameters. You Barner Fife's sure get your feelings hurt easily and start the mudslinging.
I'm not cherry picking...in fact that is what the writer did and why the sample is flawed.Typical barner wanting to cherry pick dates to make them look best.
Why does it even matter? All it's doing is taking the # of wins and how much was paid for each. Do you think I want to trade places with Cincy? Fuck no. But I don't give a crap if Cincy gets the most wins for their buck at all.
I'm not cherry picking...in fact that is what the writer did and why the sample is flawed.