04-13-2012, 02:44 PM
WIM - am in awe of your research and the breadth of your arguments. Not convinced all are germane or as useful as you feel they are, but a compelling case none the less.
One particular contention: I'm not that wild about the weight given returning starts on the Oline. As a metric it's better than nothing and possibly predictive in extremes, but the error bars are way too wide for me. The reality is that many programs (like Oregon, and to a lesser extent Stanford) routinely play 8-10 deep on O-line. Little to none of that is taken into account. I don't understand why number of snaps isn't kept and used like minutes played is for basketball. That would be something I would pay attention to.
Regardless, I feel strongly enough about this subject to wager a 10 pack of mini-Butterfingers vs their cousin Snickers that UWs oline performance for 2012 will be superior to their 2011 effort on the metrics you have cited: sacks & tackles for loss. I gauntlet thee sir!
One particular contention: I'm not that wild about the weight given returning starts on the Oline. As a metric it's better than nothing and possibly predictive in extremes, but the error bars are way too wide for me. The reality is that many programs (like Oregon, and to a lesser extent Stanford) routinely play 8-10 deep on O-line. Little to none of that is taken into account. I don't understand why number of snaps isn't kept and used like minutes played is for basketball. That would be something I would pay attention to.
Regardless, I feel strongly enough about this subject to wager a 10 pack of mini-Butterfingers vs their cousin Snickers that UWs oline performance for 2012 will be superior to their 2011 effort on the metrics you have cited: sacks & tackles for loss. I gauntlet thee sir!