-Next year 4 teams will make the playoffs instead of 3
On to the draft, everyone in the league is listed below. Whoevers players scores (meaning he has the ball in the endzone, not a TD pass) the last TD of the BCS championship game gets next years first pick. The person below that person then has the second pick and so on. So if a defensive TD is the last score of the game Frederick would have first pick, Bryan 2nd and Kobza would be the last pick. Any questions let me know.
Players were drawn out of a hat by Super Libbie.
*remember D.Murray is out for this game due to injury
1. Aaron Kobza---Broyles, Chaney, B.James
2. Aaron Frederick--any OU or Florida player not listed, offense or defense
3. Bryan Hein--Bradford, C.Moore, D.Thompson
4. Chris Long--Demps, R.Cooper
5. Craig Palik--Iglesias
6. Darrin Uden--Gresham
7. Josh Mai--Murphy, A.Hernandez
8. Mike Bomar--Madu
9. Ryan Beringer--Harvin
10. Tyson Warm--Tebow
11. Troy Flannigan--Manuel Johnson, E.Moody
12. Tick Besky--C.Brown
58 comments:
I say we take out Michigan at least for this next year. They're going to suck again. Dick Rod needs a baller QB to make his offense run. That player isn't on campus yet.
can she handle Kobza's 17 incher??
I will splooge a pearl necklace on that chick with the SNES, so Bryan can run off without her knowing.
kobza has a 1 incher
Anyone here wanna wrestle me?
I will take you on!
we wrestle together naked, along with taking bubble baths together and 69'ing before we dry off
I jacked off to these pictures. Sadly I am not joking.
One time while I was felching Chris Long he passed gas and I almost vomited. Luckily though I was able to get past that and still managed to suck every last drop of my hot load I blew into his ass.
Just thought you'd all like to know that.
I know I know!!
Some of you may or may not know that I am a math teacher. I was just doing some number crunching with a set of twelve numbers (21, 21, 16, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 6). The average of this 12 numbers in 12.92. When you look at averages in terms of statistics, if a number is greater then the average the likeliness of it happening is greater. Most of the numbers in that set of twelve are close to the average (16 - 10). We still have 3 numbers that aren't even close to this average (21, 21, 6) However, if we remove 4 from one of the 21's and add it to six we would get 17 and 10. If we replace the 21 and 6 from the set with 17 and 10 we come up with a set that has the same average but now only one number really isn't close to that average. In statistics we call it a "fair" set. That just means that the probabilities of each of the events are similar and that each outcome as an equal chance of happening. My 7th graders did this work (honestly Palik) and came up with the conclusion that (21, 17, 16, 13, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 10) is a more fair set. They just wanted me to share this with you guys. If you would like more information about this you need to contact Palik. He's been getting a lesson in statistics since monday.
Bomar
Bomar - my head just exploded.
Tick, you are the FANTASY GEEK...what do you think?
Um, you realize that Murray's not playing right? Madu and C Brown are gonna split carries.
yeah Tick, fnatasy GEEK! lol
Is this going to be like they split carries in the Big 12 championship game? Or was it a blowout and Brown carried the ball 30 times and Madu carried 15 times. Did I mention it was a blowout and Madu only had 6 carries in the first half. You do realize tick that Madu is not Brown right. And just because Murray and Brown split carries doesn't mean Brown and Madu will. Hell they didn't in the one game murray was out.
Tick getting owned liek ususal
Looking at Madu's stats, he gets about 10 carries a game. That's probably more touches then any receiver will get in this game except maybe Harvin, so he will have more chances to score then any receiver.
Your whole stats experiment doesn't make much sense considering that Murray was playing during all those games. You don't think had Murray been out all year that Madu might've gotten a couple more TD's?
Plus, do you really want the #1 pick anyways? Is there really a clear cut #1?
Leave it to Mike to argue just for the sake of arguing.
I've got to admit that Tick's last take was what I was thinking all along. I wouldn't even want the first pick anyway....unless John Levorson is being moved to offense.
Tick = FANTASY GEEK
Where's my buddy MaxRB?
More stats:
Harvin has 61 receptions with 9 touchdowns and 35 carries for 7 touchdowns which means he will find the endzone 1 time for every 6 touches.
Madu has 11 receptions for 0 touchdowns and 111 rushes for 6 touchdowns which means he will find the endzone 1 time for every 20.3 touches.
Who really has a better chance of scoring? This isn't even close Tick! Do you really think Madu has a better chance of scoring then Harvin?
My argument isn't with Madu. My argument and my 7th graders argument is that Madu should be paired with another player (such as David Nelson) to even out the probabilities.
Also, the other players that were not paired with anyone else are starters (Iglesias, Greshem, Harvin, Tebow, and Brown) which means at the end of a tight game they will be on the field. Madu will not. I'm only making the argument that he should be paired with someone else because you are making assumptions that he is going to replace Brown's carries. Madu is not comparable to any of the other players that didn't get paired up.
I meant replace Murray's carries.
Tick = FANTASY GEEK
Iglesias 1 touchdown for every 7 touches
Gresham 1 touchdown for every 5 touches
Harvin 1 touchdown for every 6 touches
Tebow 1 touchdown for every 13 touches
Brown 1 touchdown for every 10 touches
Madu 1 touchdown for every 20 touches
Come on Tick...
Tick = FANATSY GEEK and scared,lol
Go read my post again. I said every receiver EXCEPT Harvin.
Once again, you're using stats from when Madu was a third stringer, which he is not anymore. I'm not saying Madu is going to replace Murray, but he's gonna get at least some of those carries.
Using your stats, giving you Nelson would be very unfair cause he scores once every 2.5 touches.
"Using your stats, giving you Nelson would be very unfair cause he scores once every 2.5 touches."
Boom and Bomar is OWNED by Tick...
Madu scores once every 4 inches.
Anyone want to go to Waneks in Crete with me? I need help loading up a love seat in my truck.
count me in Moose, I will help although I am from Tailand and have a 1/2 incher
In that 4th pic from the top, isn't that guy Tyson?
And tick read my post again. Madu's numbers don't come even close to comparing to any of the other players that aren't paired up. Yes Nelson's touchdowns per touches are really good. That's the point. You include people like that to even out the averages, or do you not understand how averaging things out works. Thank you for proving my point.
And you did say,
"Um, you realize that Murray's not playing right? Madu and C Brown are gonna split carries."
Which would mean that you do think Madu is going to take Murray's carries, considering Murray and Brown split carries. Maybe you need to read your posts again.
Come on Tick, you can do better then that...
To be honest, I forgot Murray didn't play in the Big 12 title game.
You are basing Madu's numbers on ONE game! If we're going by stats from one game, Madu had over 100 yards and 3 touchdowns, so you should be pretty happy!
I'm not basing Madu's numbers on one game. I'm basing his numbers on one half before the game was a blowout. Of course the third stringers are going to get playing time in a blowout when the next game is the National Championship. He had 6 carries before half Tick. Thank you for proving my point again.
You can do better then that Tick
Not to mention that I also never said that Madu wasn't going get a ton of carries or even none. I'm saying that you can't really assume what his productivity is going to be because there is nothing to really base it on. He should have been paired with someone else.
Well Boys, the numbers don't lie. Tick and Palik were right! Madu and his 4 carries and 1 reception was definitly worth not being paired up with anyone. My 7th graders did not out smart those two by any means. Madu did actually split carries just like they said they would. I always tell my students that numbers don't lie and usually palik says the same thing, but in this case the stats were wrong. Nevermind that Iglesias had 10 touches and was thrown to a few more times, Gresham had 8 touches and 2 touchdowns, Harvin had 14 touches, Tebow 22 touches, and Brown 24 touches. They were all equal and all deserved to be treated as equals. I probably shouldn't have made my point on Monday because this game did not play out exactly like I told him it would. Thank God Tick did exactly what Palik told him to do and set me straight on the blog here. I now have learned my lesson, that Tick and Palik are the end all when it comes to College Football Knowledge. Thank God we are taking our 7th graders bowling tomorrow, this way they will have a chance to clear their minds after getting served! Thank God those two believe everything they read on the web rather then thinking for themselves or listening to reason! I think that's it! Go David Nelson!
Really, you should get more worked up over this, it's totally worth it.
Everything I read said that Madu would get goalline carries. OU got to the goalline once, Madu got one carry, Brown came in for a passing play, then they went no huddle so he didn't come back out. Had OU got to the goalline again, Madu would've had other chances. I already told you I screwed up on the whole split carries thing.
Madu was listed as 8-1 to score the first TD, pretty low odds. I'll trust Vegas on college football odds more then your 7th graders everyday.
I'll trust Vegas on college football odds more then your 7th graders everyday.
what are talking about 7th graders now way more!!! LMAO
Tick all I want to hear is I was right (for 4 straight days) and you were wrong. I'm not worked up nor have I been. I've just been right. Do we need to have Palik to tell you to post I was right or can you do that on your own?
I'm willing to listen to offers for my first pick.
That's almost like bragging that you were right on a coin flip. Had the game gone differently, you have no idea what would've happened. Congrats, you picked heads.
It's not a coin flip when you have the stats to back your info up Tick. Good try though! It's okay to admit that your were wrong. That would be a very big step for you.
Nice try again, but your stats don't make sense since you factored in Madu's stats for the whole season when he was a third string RB. It would've made more sense to factor in his stats from the one game he was second string.
Really, so the stats didn't turn out the exact same way that the game did? A coin toss is one thing, an entire game is another. It's so cute that you actually are trying to argue this to the end when in the end you were wrong. Everything that the stats showed and that I had said since Monday happened in the game. Nelson catching that touchdown was pure luck, but knowing exactly what Madu was going to do was not Tick. It just takes having a mind of your own and reasoning things out rather then believing everything you read and simply repeating everything Palik says.
I don't know how many times I have to show you how your stats are flawed since Madu was third string all year.
Yes, you were correct on your prediction about Madu not getting enough carries, and in the end, you were right that Madu should've been paired up with someone. But in no way did your stats prove anything because they were flawed. Your intuition was correct, not your stats.
If the odds on Madu were wrong in Vegas and you knew how the game was going to play out. Why didn't you make tons of chips on the game? It is so easy to do. Madu would have had more chances on the goal line, but time was running out at the end of the 1st half. So, Choklahoma couldn't run the ball and instead threw a pick.
anyone else notice Kobza, Brian and Chris also had guys that did nothing but they don't cty like a little girl?
First of all, Tick, I know how much you love the movie 21. Do you remember when they talk about variable change? If you look back at the stats that I talked about, that was included. There was no intuition involved. It was all statistics. Intuition was used on your part when you assumed Madu would all of a sudden take over the same role that Brown had to Murray. I used stats, you used an assumption. I'm sorry Craig used an assumption, he just told you what to say. Now to address the Kobza, Brian, and Chris comment. Thank you for proving once again what I've been saying all along. How many players did they have? More then one! And to be perfectly honest I don't really care that I don't have the number one pick. I noticed the statistical discrepinces and brought that up to Palik. If you would ask palik, the only thing I mentioned was that another player should be included with Madu because of how I KNEW the game would turn out. After looking at the players that had not been handed out, David Nelson was the only player that would have made sense. It was pure chance that he actually scored that last touchdown, but Tick, don't be so nieve as to think it was chance that Madu got 4 carries. Now you are just continuing the argument because you know that I will continue to post stuff. But the fact of the matter is that it wasn't chance. This was a great mathematical lesson for my 7th graders and through it all we proved that numbers don't lie. Now Tick, just to let you in on a little secret, because this is the last I will comment on this subject. Haven't you realized yet that you were baited into an argument? Who informed you to look at the board? Don't you realize that we knew you would get into it on the message board? Come on Tick, you are still arguing now for the sake of arguing, and you are fighting someone else's battle. Why do you think this person is not fighting the battle? You were thrown to the wolves because after everything was presented, he knew that the numbers were right. I realize this turned into more then Josh vs Tyson but Tick you are still trying to fight a battle that is over. Probably because you are still being told to. It's okay though, us free thinkers will move on from this. My point in all of this was to show the commish a flaw in his thinking, call me Ernie Chambers if you will. I have no problem being the bad guy in this because it is my job to show my students that numbers really do mean something. And I did that. My 7th graders knew what would happen before you did Tick. I realize that is a tough pill for you to swallow, which is why you were baited and no one else went for it. You were baited because everyone knows you wouldn't back down, even when you are wrong.
Here's an actual quote by you:
"I'm saying that you can't really assume what his productivity is going to be because there is nothing to really base it on."
You say this, and yet somehow come to a conclusion that Madu was gonna suck based on your numbers. Your own numbers say that there is no statistical basis to gauge what Madu was going to do, yet you somehow claim that your numbers prove you right.
Let me bring you into my world. I did a lot of research projects in college that dealt with figuring out if something is going to happen based on previous results. If I had brought your research to a professor, he would've thrown it out in about two seconds as there was not enough statistical data on Madu to make any hypothetical guess on what his production would be.
Stop bringing your 7th graders into this. You should know that teachers have a huge influence on their students. If you told them that 2+2=5 enough times, they would believe you.
As far as doing things Palik tells me to do, I knew you guys were having this argument on Monday and didn't say anything until you started posting shit on the message board. C'mon, you don't think I know that Palik was posting all that shit trying to rile us up? If you wanted to keep this between you and Palik, you could have, but you just had to spout your opinion off on the board. Just cause I had the same opinion about it doesn't mean he's telling me what to say. Oh, and last time I checked, it takes two people to have an argument. If I got "roped" in like you said, then the person I was arguing with got roped in too. (that would be you)
Oh, and 21 sucked balls. Horrible movie.
I like 7th grade boys.
Again thank you for proving my point:
My Quote
"I'm saying that you can't really assume what his productivity is going to be because there is nothing to really base it on."
You can't ASSUME his productivity, which is what you did. Since there wasn't anything to base it on, you couldn't ASSUME anything. You had to trust exactly what the stats said, which was limited time and limited carries, which is exactly what happened.
And you didn't do any research projects in college with stats. I might be wrong on this, but didn't you have to take it twice? And actually professors love things like this. I did a black jack project this summer that dealt with variable change in my grad classes and they ate it up. Math professors love projects that show that numbers don't lie. But good argument! Really!
And yes that first post Tick, was made to see if/what you would say. I gotta say you have given a great effort, but there is no way to get around it. Things that happened in that game were not a fluke. Have I taken this farther then it needed to be, yes. Like I said before, I don't care what pick I get. It's just in my nature to find flaws and my only point was Madu should have been paired up, which I don't really know how you can argue that...but you will. This is kinda like an old school football coach not willing to change their coaching philosophy to fit the changing game. He thinks he knows the game so well and had been so successful in the past that he thinks his philosophy is the best and doesn't need to change despite getting blown out by 40 every game. Tick you do have a ridiculus amount of sports knowledge and have been successful with it in the past, but now that I put one idea you had to question you became really defensive even though you were wrong. Take your 40 point rout like a champ and learn from it. Hopefully, I introduced you to a new way to look at things and you can benefit from it.
Gee, I forgot, you were in all my classes so you know what research projects I did. And no, I never had to take any of my classes twice.
Once again, you contradicted yourself by assuming stats for Madu even though you said that there is no possible way to based on your stats to make any assumption. There was not enough statistical evidence to prove anything. That would be like Gallup conducting a poll on who will be the next president and only interviewing five people. Face it, we both made assumptions based on nothing that neither one of us could prove. Just because you ended up being right doesn't mean your stats were. I've already told you many times already that you were right about Madu's carries, it's just that your stat formula had nothing to do with it.
If your stats had made sense, I would have no problem admiting I was wrong. Hell, I probably wouldn't have even argued about it. Oh, and you telling someone to admit they were wrong is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I thought you said you weren't gonna post anymore?
I know I said I wasn't going to post anymore, but you know me, I just can't shut up when I feel I'm right.
One last time, the assumptions were done by you. You made the assumptions that things will change based on other variables (Murray being out). I said you can't assume. Therefor, I did not assume. I said here are the numbers and based on the numbers, Madu needed to be paired up. Numbers in pretty much any profession are considered facts. So basically I said that the facts say this about Madu. You made assumptions that Murray being out would change those numbers (facts). So again Tick, you made assumptions, I showed you facts.
Once again, you did not have enough statistical evidence to say anything about Madu's stats. Stop hiding behind your phony numbers and admit your stats prove nothing.
How is it hiding behind phoney numbers when the numbers showed exactly what I said would happen. Here we go one more time Tick: The players were all divided out based on concrete stats for their entire season. Players with more favorable concrete stats were alone, players with less favorable stats were paired with other players. Everything was based on concrete stats. Madu was a player with less favorable stats, I don't think you can argue that.
Murray gets hurt and does not play the entire Big 12 Championship game. And will now not play in the BCS Championship game. Now Craig and you make the ASSUMPTION that the concrete numbers for his season would change because Murray is out. Yet you are the one telling me that one game without Murray is not a large enough sample size make any ASSUMPTIONS, yet that is exactly what you did. I made no ASSUMPTIONS and went directly by what his concrete stats said. How do you not understand that you made the assumptions, I went by the facts of the season.
Then after you said you can't use the one game without Murray as a large enough sample size, you went ahead and threw out his numbers from that game as way to justify your ASSUMPTIONS. 100+ yards and 3 touchdowns. You do recall saying that right? That would be you using the one game after you told me you couldn't base anything on one game. So naturally, I did a little research to find out what happened in that game and discovered that Madu only had 6 carries in the first half of a blowout and Oklahoma wanted to rest their starters in the second half for the National Championship game. So based on that, I agreed with you completely that you can't base your stats on one game, which is what you continued to say this whole time. Since you can't just use the stats from one game (really just one half) you have to go by the original concrete numbers that you started with when you divided out the players, which would mean Madu would need to by paired up with someone else.
Not hiding, not have I been. Pretty sure I've been pretty open with you this whole time.
Not phoney numbers, concrete stats based on the entire season.
That last post of yours just makes you sound desprite. Don't stoop to that level Tick.
Yes, I brought up Madu's stats from the Big 12 title game. I was also being pretty sarcastic when I brought them up because obviously you can't use his one game he played as second string as a starting point to predict what he would do in the BCS title game. Sorry, sarcasm doesn't come across in print very well.
For the umpteenth time, you did not have enought statistical data with Madu as a second string back for your numbers to make sense, therefore, you also made ASSUMPTIONS on what his stats would be. You can't accurately predict what his stats would be since your "concrete" stats on Madu were all when he was a third string RB, not a second string. I've admited that I made ASSUMPTIONS, why cant' you?
Post a Comment