James Franklin publicly stated he wanted his assistant coaches to have hot wives and/or girlfriends. And yet his team was out coached by NU..........makes one wonder......
I've had it with Inside NU...
- Thread starter iskaboo
- Start date
James Franklin publicly stated he wanted his assistant coaches to have hot wives and/or girlfriends. And yet his team was out coached by NU..........makes one wonder......
I went to NU and love NU sports as much as anybody, and for the life of me I don't see anything in this piece that's outrageous. I guess I can see why people who don't want to see anything other than "NU is awesome" published anywhere on the internet might be upset, but I don't think this kind of information makes our season less legitimate. I didn't think it was controversial to argue that football is a high-variance sport because there's only 12 games and a lot of good and bad breaks can happen to teams within each of those games.
Sometimes you get lucky and get a win or two more than you maybe should, and sometimes you get unlucky and get a win or two fewer than you should. I still think our 1997 team was much better than 5-7, but I also think we were a bit fortunate to go 19-5 the two seasons before that. It doesn't matter much in the end, because a team's ability to win championships/go to bowl games is about actual wins and losses and my enjoyment of the games each week is driven by that. But to say that there isn't room to analyze how well teams are playing and how lucky/unlucky teams are getting within those wins and losses is a little silly.
Ultimately, I don't know why this is all such a big deal. Statistical analysis can be fun and informative. Watching games absent of that context is also fun and informative. Nobody's right or wrong about how they consume something that is ultimately just entertainment. I can see why a story like this might not be your thing, but it seems a little ridiculous to me to suggest that writing something like this is evidence of a concerted effort to denigrate our team.
I can't think of anything in the entire world that I care LESS about than whether or not you believe that I don't know what Henry thinks of Fitz. But I have no idea what he thinks of Fitz. Also, I'm not sure why it matters. Maybe you're suggesting that Henry wishes him ill or wants our team to do badly because he doesn't like the coach. That would be like you to think that.
*sigh* Fine. I'll take your word for it. Just don't forget that in your earlier post you said, "Believe me, I know these guys." Suddenly you can't even tell me his opinion on Fitz? Pretty weird that conversation has never come up if you know him so well.
if not for insidenu this board wouldnt have anything to complain about. the shills and pollyannas would only have napo harris to talk about and denying the real attendance problems. with such a great year, its really sad how the pollyannas have fussed about all the petty things instead of posting all of the great things about this team. Good Grief!
I'll bite. Ben Goren here. Henry thinks Fitz is doing a good job. He CERTAINLY doesn't wish ill of any NU coaches.
Yea I actually agree with Doc here. The two supposed "camps" here are arguing two different things. This is going to be nerdy, but it's like one friend that we always used to make fun of for giving "orthogonal" responses. Meaning if you asked (paraphrasing) is it forward or is it back? The answer you'd get would be "well I think it's left". (Or taken to another level in 3-D, is it forward/back, or is it left/right... and the answer you get is up/down).
In any event, in this case the forward/back axis is wins and losses (arbitrary characterized as the "successful" axis), and the left right axis is the so called "effectiveness" axis (which he probably wrongly equates with good or bad). You guys are arguing with his arbitrary parameters in part and that's a fair criticism. But outside of disagreeing with how he defined his parameters, essentially he is saying "left or right"? And you are saying "no darn it, it's forward". And you're understandably annoyed at a few sentences that probably were intentionally phrased too starkly so as to incite debate. Perhaps the tone in certain areas also. But like Doc and some others here I certainly don't interpret this article as part of a concerted effort to denigrate the program at all.
In any event, I think Inside NU is a useful site in that it amalgamates lots of sources of information and provides another forum for discussion, one which is more easily accessed for the younger generation of NU fans. Particularly after the shutdown of LTP, which was a shame but understandable.
However, I do think their football analysis is pretty superficial. They are helpful in that they quote lots of other external stats that I might not take the time to find otherwise, and they produce a lot of content, but I think the actual amount of organic analysis they contribute themselves is fairly low and at times inaccurate in my judgment. Including grades, previews, postgame analysis. I do like the individual play breakdowns. And that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work that they do - it takes a lot of time and effort to produce all that content, and it provides a useful starting point for discussion plus a venue in which to discuss it. Think of it like Turk's stuff- often its superficial and or things that are obvious, but he still takes them time to write his opinions and I appreciate reading his grades. Cause then I can see what I agree with and disagree with, and then watch everyone else comment on it as well. I won't agree with all of what anyone says, but it will help inform my own opinion. Plus, it's fun to read discussion about NU sports.
This is kind of a side tangent, but my personal interpretation is that the inside NU guys are meaningfully more knowledgeable at basketball and contribute better analysis there. They also care more about that sport and it shines through in their relative enthusiasm for it (and knowledge about it). Could be wrong, but that's just my read.
(Sorry this got so long)
Last edited:
I don't know why you bother with an intelligent response. I just slap their faces with the "crystalline truth" and yell at them. When those clueless nerds complain about the language then I give them another dose. It's great fun!
I'd love for them to analyze the 1975 NU vs Arizona game and argue stats are in any way relevant to the final score. That game was my epiphany! That's when I learned the crystalline truth ...1) the final score is the ONLY stat that matters, and 2) stats are for losers.
Damn straight! 8-2 is 8-2, no matter how you throw about other stats...
Sure you are... and I'm Jim Phillips and I can assure you that Henry hates Fitz. He writes me letters all the time asking me to fire him.
He also hates puppies and rainbows
I don't know who's making it out to be a big deal. It matters not one iota what a blog posts about the team.
I just happened to disagree rather emphatically with several of the key conclusions including that playing well/poorly one week versus another is due to random variability and that statistics are in any way a more meaningful source of information about a team than winning and losing.
I don't disagree with the stats that generally conclude the team is not dominant and generally is not good offensively, but I dismiss the notion that making big plays at critical times in close games comes from luck or random variability.
Doc, not looking to get into a sparring match, but that is quite a prediction to put Henry up there with Wilbon at some point. I know blood is thicker than water, but many of the features on InsideNU has a format/style that I personally don't like. This article was written in his typical "matter of fact" style that drew conclusions FOR the reader versus a thought provoking approach that let the reader draw their own. The title of the article and very first sentence tell you the conclusion. Sorry, but even without a writing background and an NU degree, I am capable of making my own conclusion.
Honestly, I stopped reading it mid article and had to go back to finish it after all of this hullabaloo. I think saber metrics are a starting point to a discussion. Maybe that was the intent, but I get pretty geeked up when they exclude all of those "fuzzy concepts" you reference because anyone that has played any high level sport knows there are reason beyond stats that teams win or lose. IMO, there are intangibles that can't be measured in deciding victories. If Henry disagrees fine, but please Henry don't force that conclusion on me!
I think every writer is going to come up with pieces that some people don't like. Some of the stuff Henry has done I think has been crazy outstanding. Some stuff not so much. He has a lot more time to hone his craft but he already has been given awards for his work including best writer in the B1G Conference amongst student journalists. I think he's the real deal. If you want to see a first rate example of his work, I would direct you to the short documentary on Kyle Prater done last year.
It is sad you don't realize you can be the most polarizing personality on the board with all of your dumb name calling of "Homers, shills, and Pollyannas". What is next "brown nose"?
But this paragraph, and the premise of that article, including the ridiculous sentences discussed here and elsewhere, were wrong! NU is a very good team because they've found a way to win the ONLY stats category that is important in football 8 out of 10 times. Stats may be useful for making gambling predictions or assessing areas of team strength and weakness, but they are irrelevant when the ref blows the whistle to start the game. After you've suffered huge losses in games where you've dominated every stat except for the scoreboard, then maybe you'll understand.
Put another way, your golf stats are not going to determine where your next drive will land or your final score. Regarding the Big Ten Championship game, DiNardo correctly stated that it doesn't matter if Iowa is regarded as a "weaker team" than OSU, they only have to beat OSU in that game. What good were stats and the spread when NU beat Notre Dame?
Last edited:
1) Thanks for reading! Not sure what that has to do with my comments on the article, but hey.
2) You, of all people, are in the most fragile of glass houses when it comes to critical comments against historically successful NU coaches.
3) I personally don't care but it is quite rude to reveal someone's identity on a message board without their consent.
Last edited:
But you were! You crushed him with sound analyses and exposed him as ignorant about football. Negative, know-it-all nerd journalists hate that.
Last edited:
I wouldn't have, except that you say you're Styre right on your twitter page.
You stand by what you said, right?
And I think that just highlights the notion that different people interact with the game in different ways. It's certainly different for me than for you, because you were an excellent player and I'm sure the experiences you had playing the game and being part of the team at NU have shaped the person you are now. That's a deeper connection than the vast majority of us have to this. I'm just a guy who went to the same school and loves watching the team play.
I do think luck is pretty important in sports. I also do agree with you that teams that are well-coached and well-prepared can handle key situations and come through when it matters. My definition of luck is more things like unpredictable bounces, bad calls by officials, players failing to do something simple that they do correctly 99% of the time, etc. And those things can have an effect on a teams W-L record in my opinion. And unlike baseball, which has 162 games instead of 12, there isn't always time in a football season for those things to "even out."
I enjoy that people have different perspectives on what is and isn't important or true when we're all watching the same game. I do feel that people would be much more open to eagerly discussing an article saying "we should be 8-2!" when we're 4-6 than something suggesting we may not be as good as the record indicates.
Yes, but I don't say the converse on here... nonetheless, I'm not bothered by it.
Sure. Is there a reason why you're making this about me instead of the subject of the thread?
I'm assuming your reply was not sarcastic. If so, read on.
You too have totally missed the point. Obviously the goal of everything starts and ends with victories. Henry's point is to find metrics that measure how well a team plays and correlate it with the win/loss record. If that offends your sensibilities as an athlete or a fan then that's fine-- nobody says you have to subscribe to it. I think the sabermetrics advocates would argue that until advanced statistics can predictably and repeatedly correlate with wins and losses that means that there are more statistics that need to be devised. It's a fascinating intellectual exercise.
Interesting analogy to golf. Pat Goss, the NU golf coach and pretty much consensus one of the great teachers of the game, spends a tremendous amount of time with advanced golf stats as a way of giving his teams and his players maximum advantage. Pat continues to work with the author of Freakonomics on golf related projects to the same end. The fact is, there IS a correlation to where your next drive will land or your final score. The application to that dictates what club you should use or whether you should go for the green or layup for example. Of course it's not 100%. But every advantage helps.
Yea I should tack on to my earlier comment that the quality of their writing seems plenty good to me and the softer pieces fun to read, I was just talking about some football analysis
3) I personally don't care but it is quite rude to reveal someone's identity on a message board without their consent.[/QUOTE]
It is worse than rude. It is a great way to earn a vacation.
It is worse than rude. It is a great way to earn a vacation.
Last edited:
Because bias' always make their way into arguments. That goes for everyone. In your circumstance, you can't stand Phillips (and Fitz), and as a result, it's effecting your enjoyment of NU basketball and football. You're views are extremely negative, and you enjoy criticizing the coaches when given the opportunity. However, you rarely give them credit for anything.
I get the sense that this group likes Fitz fine, but want McCall and other offensive staff gone. That's not too unpopular of an opinion and has been shared quite a bit around here, too.
Okay, but...
...even if all of this is true -- and it's wildly overstated, so it isn't -- what does it have to do with the article on InsideNU? My point, that different people follow sports in different ways, and there's no reason for an article like this to diminish your enjoyment if you don't want it to, has nothing to do with my personal opinions.
In short.
"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."
When you write something as stupid and completely false as this, then you have to wonder what that person's motivations are.
Didn't intend to refute it. I 've rather enjoyed all the commentary about it, but I sure take the Connelly rankings with a big grain of salt. I notice that Bowling Green team he loves so much is getting waxed at home by Toledo tonight. And what is Bowling Green's best win? Maryland, Purdue? Wow, the two worst teams in the BIG. They do score a lot of points on offense, though.
You sound like cable news taking a single sound bite and ignoring the meaning and context. I think you are better than that. I refer you to my original post in this thread.
i like the word shill. i try to use it when i can. with all new words in my vocabulary, im sure ill get bored with it.
Go Cats!
It's also the only stat that will matter 5, 10, or 100 years from now as well. The rest is yawn-inducing arm-waving.
Obviously it's the only one that does/will matter. Do you really not understand the point? Seriously?
Well, then you grossly underestimated me.
Oh, and sorry about the font size, that was somewhat of an accident.
So sayeth the One who gave us "The Problem of Fitz", "The Fake By the Lake", and the timeless "Needs work."
"But the true effectiveness of a team should not be measured in wins and losses."
Sorry, but this statement is the thermonuclear option in the article. The article is actually fairly well constructed, and your paraphrasing is illuminating. But what kind of writer thinks he/she can get away with such a statement?
Sorry, but this statement is the thermonuclear option in the article. The article is actually fairly well constructed, and your paraphrasing is illuminating. But what kind of writer thinks he/she can get away with such a statement?