Science is Done

“We hypothesize that highly recruited players will be able to run faster, jump higher, and be physically larger in size compared to recruited players. Additionally, we hypothesize that the 40-yd sprint and the vertical jump will be the best predictors of star value, with faster 40-yd sprint times and higher vertical jump scores predicting higher star values. And oh yeah, they tend to be black. Did we mention that? Well, anyway, it turns out that bigger and blacker is the way to go. OMG did I just say that?? lol.”

nordberg -

Nice. I thought about going that route with the post. I even started putting together a chart illustrating the inverse correlation between the angle at which a recruit’s eyes slant and his star rating.

“I thought about going that route with the post. I even started putting together a chart illustrating the inverse correlation between the angle at which a recruit’s eyes slant and his star rating.”

Even if you had, we wouldn’t have been able to understand it.

Well played, Ricky.

parlin is going to hunt you down and pummel you with a Riverside Shakespeare.

Ghigiarelli’s grasp of all things football is stunning. F-tard probably had a Department of Education grant to come up with the (bigger,faster) >> (smaller, slower) findings.

Next somebody should eat McDonald’s for a month straight to see if they gain weight.

Taylor Bible’s spring project?

Anybody worth listening to knows kinesiology has never been a real science. Sure, a kinesiology major might do a great job as a personal trainer and banging your wife, but mentionbeta oxidation and they think you’re casting spells. Seriously, I had a kinesiology graduate from UT tell me “you don’t burn fat.”

Are you over weight? Maybe he was talking to you.

I knew such a response was coming, magnus. You’re welcome for the lob. No, not at the time. It’s just that biochemistry apparently has no place in kinesioogy. Maybe I’m unfairly generalizing, I didn’t think that was frowned on around here.

“No, not at the time.”

Oh great, first science is done, and now apparently pretending to be somebody else while killing time on the internet is dead too?

This is how it works; I ask if maybe you were a little plump. You retort back; go fuck yourself, I’m 6 foot 5 235 lbs. of lean P90X shitting muscle!

This is no place for honesty.

They should do a scientific study on what compels one to pass out naked on a guest’s leather couch.

Is that part of the P90X curriculum?

But I wasn’t done being an intellectual eitist prick toward kinesiologists yet. Next time, I’ll follow the accepted formula for comically crass BC repartees. I’m new; don’t give up on me.

Vash, I don’t know if that’s part of the curriculum, but if it is, I’m going to start inviting hot chicks at the gym over to do P90x.

“Here’s a great recovery drink my kinesiology professor buddy at Hofstra came up with. It’s 2 parts gatorade, 8 parts vodka.”

“They should do a scientific study on what compels one to pass out naked on a guest’s leather couch.”

Now you know to complete that study you should give me the placebo (O’Douls).

Bleh. I was actually gonna defend this putz…it’s actually true IN THEORY it’s not a bad thing to do this type of data crunching if you come out of it with some solid estimates of the correlation between measurables and recruiting status. We all know there is a correlation, but what size is it? It would be nice to be able to pin a somewhat-useful number (i.e., with a manageable margin-of-error) to its importance. You pair that info with good data about future performance and you can start coming up with actually-useful data for player recruitment and improvement.

But then I read the study. Egad.

Here’s the kicker:
"Factors such as school size, geographical area, high school winning percentage, and coaches’ ability to advertise the player are several factors that were not accounted for in this study. "

That’s kinda like saying “We did a census of Texas, but declined to include Fort Worth and San Antonio.”

UH GIGLI (you don’t mind if I call you Gigli, right?) YOUR NUMBERS ARE TOTALLY WORTHLESS. And getting numbers was the whole point! BAAAAAAH.

I’m guessing Gigli’s the only maybe-not-graduating Master’s student in a school with embarrassingly low standards (c’mon Hofstra, really). So dude if you’re out there reading this sometime, I apologize if that’s the case…just keep pluggin’ away at it, I guess…and maybe use more than one limited data source next time, ’kay?

STATISTICS SHIT-TALK COMPLETE.

“They should do a scientific study on what compels one to pass out naked on a guest’s leather couch.”

What kind of shit hole do you live in that compels guests to bring their own couches?

“should be abandoned in lieu of idolotry and shamanism.”

Damn, the Aggies have a huge lead on us when it comes to idolatry, shamanism and tribalism. Looks like their time may really have finally come again as their soothsayers have been predicting lo these many years.

in regards to some scientific formula or 40 yard dash times being able to determine who will be a star in the NFL, i have always felt that the combine testing was discriminatory. i believe that the practice of measuring 40 times, standing broad jump, cones, etc was unfairly skewed so that it would help the black athlete. much like the SAT tests verbiage needing to be changed to allow minorities to better understand the questions, i feel other testing methods would allow the white athlete to obtain a higher ranking in the NFL draft.

as an example, the NFL currently doesn’t offer testing for how well a player brings his lunchpail to the practice field, how much of a coach on the field a certain player is, how well he answers questions from the press, or his punctuality to team meetings just to name a few.

if more weight were given to these things then i believe the white athlete would be given a more even playing field and be able to experience more success. it doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out.