previously discussed, but beating the drum once again
- Thread starter Just another PSU Fan
- Start date
I get what you are saying but I do not think it applies in this situation.
And even if it did, it would work in the other direction. By doubling the value of all bonus you make it more important, encouraging wrestlers to go for bonus more often in 2025 than you did in 1992.
I am not a fan of Alec Bradley cigars, however, I can appreciate them because of the reputation he has built in the tobacco world. I also think that Gurkha, even though the cigars are good, but not great, are a little over priced for the quality. I am just not a fan for some reason. I know someone that only smokes Gurkha. I do not understand it, however, I guess it all comes down to ones pallet.
Exactly , changing the rules will change behavior. That's why I just go by the straight up numbers. Joe Namath set an almost unbelievable passing record, I believe that you're the Jets won Super Bowl three. If I'm not mistaken, it was 4007 yards passing. That's been eclipsed multiple times due to changes in rules for offense and defense, coaching, and an advancement in various techniques.
But those things aren't the same. It wasn't a rule change that affects behavior it was an accounting change. If the NFL now credited QBs with two yards for every yard then it would be equivalent.
Iowa 's rescore is not factyal,as the claims made by Iowa fans and Tom Ryan are not. No sense in me continuing this it's only opinion "s.
a lot of rule changes!! Mel Blount rule - pass interference. Seldom did you see someone go across the middle. Heck you have the number of games played, radios in helmets. NFL like many sports - change the rules constantly and comparisons shouldn't happen.
I was referring to the rule change to double the value of bonus being an accounting change rather than a rule change that changes behavior.
I get it. This is the Penn State site. Some people do not want to admit that last year's team fell a fraction of a point behind the 1992 Iowa team. Just as I will not convince you, you will not convince me.
If it is any consolation though I just posted on the Iowa board that their 35 year streak of being in the finals is not the longest ever. OSU had a 41 year streak.
yea, I was speaking in general. Apologize for not following closer. As far as the 'points' go... it's relative to me and only 'directional' if you will
I get what you're saying and I don't really disagree.
I get your math, however I'll say that this PSU team would outscore Iowa if for some reason we took out Iowa and replaced them with this year's PSU team. Iowa then and PSU now would totally change the scores. Who knows what would happen? Would this year's PSU team score higher than Iowa against the same opponents in the match? I think so.
However you are talking about a small difference between both when we compare scores across 34 years. Either way it's something interesting to talk about.
As a Bears fan who lived through the glorious 85 season, I look back at the highlights of the season and think the entire defense would get ejected every game if they played today.
Agreed 2025 PSU would mop the floor with 1992 Iowa, but Iowa scored more.
Changed my mind!Can I score whatever you are smoking? Never mind I haven't done drugs in 70 plus years no sense starting now!
3 point shot.
162 game schedule
Changing the definition of a save
Iām sure I could research other sports and come up with a lot more. Lots of āaccountingā changes in sports.
Iāve only seen one asterisk ever in a record book, and that was abolished after people figured out how stupid it was.
Lots of stats guys like to point out stuff like this, but itās all just fantasy. Nobody that matters - the people who keep the records - care.
Youāre wrong, PSU holds the record for the most points scored at an NCAA tournament. End of story. If they decide to make falls worth 6 ten points and double advancement on the top side while tripling placement points 25 years from now, and Rutgers score 180 for coach Matter, guess what? Theyāll hold the record.
After watching Illinois vs Purdue match and Lucas B. score no offense points (beyond stall calls) and get taken down and almost taken down earlier in the match, Penn State can win ncaas at 133 for sure!
I think you meant to put this on the Iowa State forum!! Haha #vivacubaPorque no los todos?
#economy #rhyme
Shall I lower the rim to 8 feet for you so you can claim you can dunk?
You are taking this very personal.
Itās certainly not personal.
You just keep stating something that is not correct. Your last few posts about dominance and percentage of points available are worthwhile discussions. Discussing subjective topics like that with stats is good stuff. Itās not the record, though.
Do you still consider OJ Simpson the NFL single season rushing record holder? Are you not recognizing Myles Garrett breaking the sack record?
Percentage of max points is directly related to re-scoring based on the changing values assigned to fixed results. I find it odd that you find one worthwhile and the other not correct. It is just such a simple, uncontroversial thing to recognize that 1 is half of 2, 0.75 is half of 1.5, and 0.5 is half of 1.
Records like Myles Garrett's are for people who don't want to think about what they are talking about. The NFL is not interested in accuracy, just engagement. Claiming something is a new record creates engagement even if the "record" was only possible by giving extra games. I rolled my eyes when Garrett "broke" the record.
No one preps for nationals like Cael and staffā¦ PSU always seems to exceed expectations. This year will be no different.
Team is primed and ready to roll.
Iāll say itā¦ 10 qualifiers, 10 AAs, and six champs with 2 losing in the finals. Definitely break scoring record and comes close to 200 team pts!
I am quite capable of understanding that different rules, different scoring, different training methods, different technologies, etc. all affect the totals that are recorded in history. Itās not mutually exclusive that I acknowledge that those totals will be compared without regard to those factors with the highest (or the least) being awarded special recognition as the record holder.
I donāt have a problem with King Klaebo being recognized as the king of the Winter Olympics and the recognition as the record holder for most gold medals while holding the knowledge that he benefited by having far more events available to him than similar athletes just a generation ago, let alone 3. But it is still interesting to debate the dominance and āgreatnessā with the facts available to us, without assailing the fact that he holds the record. Thatās indisputable. No one has more.
i disagree with your statement that the NFL creates these records to create engagement. They simply collate statistics and recognize record holders the same way it has been done in just about everything, not just sports, throughout history.
Iām all for bringing statistics to the party - and the more the better - or discussing different rule sets or accounting when having these discussions. But IāM going to scoff if you tell me Myles Garrett doesnāt hold the NFL single season sack record or that PSU hasnāt scored the most points at an NCAA wrestling tournament. Itās just not true. You donāt get to reset the standard for a record based on anything you bring to that discussion.
And your comment about not liking to think about what you are discussing is amusing. I could suggest that perhaps you would want to think beyond a mere statistical approach to this discussion, but I wouldnāt condescend to assume you havenāt already considered and rejected it.
Last edited:
A1) "Myles Garrett holds the NFL single season sack record."
B1) "Myles Garrett has not had the greatest single season for sacks, because ..."
A2) "PSU scored the most points at an NCAA wrestling tournament."
B2) "PSU has not had the greatest single tournament performance, because ..."
Can't we just recognize one another's points and move on. A is factual. B is a defensible argument and legitimate perspective.
B1) "Myles Garrett has not had the greatest single season for sacks, because ..."
A2) "PSU scored the most points at an NCAA wrestling tournament."
B2) "PSU has not had the greatest single tournament performance, because ..."
Can't we just recognize one another's points and move on. A is factual. B is a defensible argument and legitimate perspective.
If you change A2 to PSU holds the record for most points at the NCAA wrestling championship tournament, you have restated my entire argument (not sure why you softened A2 compared with A1 and removed record unless you are also not recognizing it as the record) I have repeatedly said EXACTLY this. If someone wants to discuss their opinion about B1 and B2 have at it, but it is not changing the fact that A1 and A2 hold the record.
What I have been repeatedly pushing back against is the argument being put forth that A1 and A2 are somehow illegitimate and not the records. Which is what has been stated.
No, it has not been stated. You have interpretted it that way. You really are triggered by this idea that a simple, valid adjustment shows that 177.5 is greater than 177.
It doubt it will help much, but you could also think of it in inflation terms (because that is all this is - bonus point inflation). There are nominal numbers and real numbers. 2025 PSU has the nominal record. 1992 Iowa has the real record.
And that is real in contrast to nominal, not real in contrast to fake.
Iām very aware of the difference between nominal and real numbers. All recognized records are nominal values in the way you are using the term.
if you want to play patty cake with an economic term in a statistical argument, have at it. I spent four years studying mathematics so, youāre right, it wonāt help much as nominal doesnāt carry the day in the way you think in a statistical discussion.
Totally agree, where we diverge is bordering on pedantic . It's just something to talk about, because what else are we going to do?
That's the other side of it. A few years back I showed my son a video on YouTube about Steve Carlton's 1972 season. He was in awe when he saw what that guy accomplished.
Smart fans get the difference. Young guys often haven't been exposed to different perspectives like many of us older fellows. I'm 62 and I've seen a lot of changes in baseball, football, basketball, etc. in relation to the rules.
Again, the team that's performing well now using the current rules is an entirely different team than the teams back then that wrestled with different rules.
You change rules later and have a different people playing under the rules. You cannot realistically compare other than saying well. This team scored more points.
To acknowledge the perspective of the other side of the argument. It's not an either or situation, in my mind.
You enjoy numbers, not everyone is into it as much as you are.
I've seen this argument for fifty some years. Records are what they are. How they are calculated might change but anyone who seriously follows the sport will often Brady it.
it's one reason some might say Indiana is the greatest college football team of all time. They won 16 and all and beat all commerce by a fairly substantial margin. Winning 16 is more difficult than 11,12,13.
It is long past time to let it go, WKN. Your technical posts are awesome, but your self-defense posts are starting to give off Corby vibes.
Great minds think alike!
I am thinking of renting a couple of hookers in Las Vegas and snorting cocaine off of their breast and a$$ while working in the matches.
Maybe so, but when all the coaches call me for advice they agree with me.