blazedett;1342930; said:
See thats where you and I differ...
I wasn't offended by your remarks and I hope you won't be offended by mine.
You will have to look a long time to find someone who is a bigger Ohio State fan than me. I watched the Buckeyes get smoked by Florida. I saw the loss against LSU. LSU didn't bother me, we didn't belong in that game, but I cringed when they gave up in the second half against USC. They stood toe-to-toe and played with heart against Penn State and lost a game I thought they should have won.
I don't for a minute think that Ohio State could not beat every team in this country, given the right day. But on the average day, I think that four or five teams would beat them about 75% of the time or more. I also have no illusions about how well other teams would prepare for a game against Ohio State.
Wearing scarlet glasses doesn't obscure the strengths and weaknesses of this team. These seniors were there when we lost those big games. These are the seniors that bear that cross, even though it is not theirs alone to bear. These are the seniors that keep getting reminded about these recent big games.
Let us not forget that these seniors are the same players that chose Ohio State during all that ESPiN crap or how happy we were when they chose us, despite all that nonsense. They've seen high expectations that no one could live up to and fulfilled the negative expectations of a media that loved to see them fail.
And that is my point. We need a win. They need a win.
In response to your question, no, I wasn't hoping against meeting Miami in 2002. But, that was then and now is now.
Clearly, we feel differently about statistics. I work with statistical models most of the day and I am very comfortable with them. I appreciate their benefits and limitations. When I hear Coach Tressel say something like, "if you look at how teams beat them, they didn't do it with consistent 3 or 4 yard gains but with big plays" (or something like that?), I hear a statistical model that he obviously has used in his preparation.
Do you think that part of the game plan preparation doesn't involve a dissection of how opponents have emphasized different elements of their offensive or defensive schemes in response to former opponents? Models and other analyses don't t take the place of watching film and studying an opponent but they can inform that preparation and open one's eyes to things you might not have noticed otherwise.
So, in my view, computer models are a tool, nothing more or less. They help us understand what might happen if two teams played. If you check them out, you'll see that they let us predict the outcome of a game 75% to 80% of the time. If you look at the statistical confidence intervals of those predictions (sometimes games are too close for models to call one team a winner with statistical confidence), you'd see that models are more than 95% accurate.
Does an unsupportive model prediction mean that the Buckeyes couldn't play over their heads and win one that they shouldn't ? No. But it does mean that they would be a lot less likely to win. Who's winning the race again this year, "the experts" at CBS or Harmon and his computer, even when they have the previous week of Harmon's report in hand when they place their bets.
My point was that a one-loss Alabama or Texas bring us the same amount of prestige. Like RugbyBuck said, that does depend on whether Gatorubet's boys administer an old fashioned arse-kicking or if it is close.
Personally, I'd like to shut up the SEC guys. Wouldn't you?
