Award shares Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/11/2011 3:39:00 PM (view original):
So I don't know the meaning of "bizarre"?

You do.  JV is just being unnecessarily argumentative.

1/11/2011 3:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Isn't that what he does?
1/11/2011 3:48 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
According to "Wiktionary", that's the definition of "jvford".
1/11/2011 3:52 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect

My post was meant for tecwrg.  If he thinks a FAQ that lists the stats that decide awards (as well as their order of importance) is "vague", I can't help him.

1/11/2011 3:53 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/11/2011 3:52:00 PM (view original):
According to "Wiktionary", that's the definition of "jvford".
Nice.  You're clever for someone that can't grasp simple concepts.
1/11/2011 3:54 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
OK, I'll try again.

Yes, the awards nominations does exactly(more or less) what the FAQ describes.   That would mean the results are not "out of the ordinary" because it keeps repeating itself over and over.   However, does that mean the nominations can't be "odd"?
1/11/2011 3:58 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
I would think of the nominations as 'odd' if they didn't do "exactly(more or less) what the FAQ describes".
1/11/2011 4:01 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
To put it another way:  If you know what it says in the FAQ, and you know that a lesser offensive player can make the nominations list because of superior "out of position" defensive stats, why would it strike someone as "odd" or "bizarre" when it actually happens?
1/11/2011 4:06 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't know.  I think it's "odd" that Cam Newton wasn't suspended by the NCAA when his father "exactly" broke the rules.    I wasn't "surprised" by their decision because it's all about the money.  But I do find it "odd" that they can continue to present themselves as institutions of higher learning and essentially ignore their rules when there's money to be made.
1/11/2011 4:15 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
Sounds like you're drawing a comparison between the predictability of a statistical formula and the predictability of a bunch of greedy college presidents. 

So did you then find the Ohio St "suspensions" to be "odd" or expected?
1/11/2011 4:23 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Same thing.   I found it odd but not surprising.   Much like I find some of the award nominations. 
1/11/2011 4:41 PM
jvford
Posts: 1102 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 15 71
Prospect
So you expected that the NCAA would suspend the players for the bowl game?

I guess this is where the difference of opinion comes from.  I expected that the NCAA would allow the OSU players to play in the bowl game, just like I expect that some players with lesser offensive stats will make the nomination list because of their defensive stats.  Since "odd" means deviating from what's usual or expected, I don't find either situation to be odd. 

Of course, before I knew that the NCAA based it's decisions on money and before I read the HBD FAQ, I would have considered both situations to be "odd".
1/11/2011 5:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I just expect an organization who claims to be about the student-athlete to follow it's own guidelines.   I find it odd they don't when it affects the bottom line.  I don't find it odd that they protect the money, I find it odd that they do it so blatantly.   It's not like it won't be covered by the media.

I find it odd that some outstanding offensive seasons are overshadowed by defensive prowess.   It doesn't surprise me because you can read what influences the decision.   That doesn't make the formula any less odd.
1/11/2011 5:31 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5101 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/11/2011 3:52:00 PM (view original):
According to "Wiktionary", that's the definition of "jvford".
New suggestion: We need a WhatIfSports encyclopedia of users, great fake players, strategies, progressive/offensive leagues, etc. that we can all contribute to, and make the repository of all information that is related to WhatIfSports.

And call it WISkipedia
1/11/2011 6:12 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
Posted by jvford on 1/11/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
I would think of the nominations as 'odd' if they didn't do "exactly(more or less) what the FAQ describes".
The FAQ doesn't really "describe" anything.  It just lists the factors that are considered.  It doesn't give any information on how much each factor is weighted in the overall calculation, or even hint at what that overall calculation might be.  (Nor should it).

But if you think that a list of variables alone provides an "exact description" of how nominations are done, then you have much more amazing insight than the rest of us.
1/11/2011 6:42 PM (edited)
◂ Prev 1234 Next ▸
Award shares Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.