Morning Roundup: October 16, 2019

Morning Roundup: October 16, 2019


October 16, 2019

6 comments

  1. DonAZ
    Comments: 476
    Joined: 8/12/2015
    DonAZ
    Oct 16, 2019 at 6:37 AM

    There’s something a bit sad in reading these stories of players who are bouncing around the lower leagues. I’m reading that the top players will get $250,000 a year, which is good money. But I doubt average and backup players will get that. At some point football players have to come to a realization their playing days are over, and it’s time to transition to some other line of work. I imagine that is harder for some than it is for others.

    I approve of that last animated GIF … 🙂

    • Thunder
      Comments: 3321
      Joined: 7/13/2015
      Oct 16, 2019 at 8:39 PM

      Just like with every step in life, there are phases. Everyone who plays a sport eventually has to give it up due to age or not being good enough, except maybe golf. Someday I will have to give up coaching; I’ll probably want to relax or lose my energy or get bad knees or something.

      One thing I like about coaching is that we’re always sending kids off to college to play football (not necessarily FBS but FCS or DII or DIII), and they’re getting their first taste of college-level competition. When it’s still new to them, it keeps it fresh for us as coaches.

  2. Avatar
    Comments: 338
    Joined: 12/24/2016
    INTJohn
    Oct 16, 2019 at 8:47 AM

    Donny, Donny mah man; there’s nuthin to feel sad about with these young guys. their doing what they love & enjoy and their like, what ? 23 24 years old? Making what even if ‘only’ a hundred grand a year? 23 years old makin a hundred grand, playin in great fun cities & areas – beautiful woman,etc

    Beats the hell out of some fukin 9 to 5 sales rep job or what an average effin lawyer makes:
    https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/What-Is-the-Average-Lawyer-Salary-by-State

    If they can do it for a couple years while young & dumb I say GO 4 IT! They’ve got the rest of their lives to join the boring suit & tie 9 to 5 slobber ass kissing bullshit rat race…………
    Ur only young once
    Jus sayin………..INTJohn

    • Avatar
      Comments: 2
      Joined: 8/25/2017
      Zman
      Oct 17, 2019 at 10:01 AM

      Agree with this guy

  3. Avatar
    Comments: 338
    Joined: 12/24/2016
    INTJohn
    Oct 16, 2019 at 10:41 AM

    Awrite Morning Roundup, I have a few strays I gota rope & throw in the corral.
    First cause its Penn State week:
    I’ve seen the attempted comparisons of this seasons Michigan offense in terms of record & ppg with that of the ’16 PSU team who was 3-2 (4-2) and turned it around to eventually win the B10 Championship. I’m on record as not buying it at all. (This topic was also posted on MGoblog, too)

    That PSU team’s offense ppg average, outside of their loss to Michigan was very consistent with a Standrad Deviation of their PPG average being around +/-3 . A Standard deviation of the data points being this close to PSU’s ppg ave is an indication of valid data points, I.e Consistency to the Mean.

    Michigan’s Standard Deviation on the other hand is around +/-16 which when compared to the Michigan ave of 28 ppg @ +/- 16 ppg with a 5 or 6 game set of data points is a STRONG sign of statistical invalid data points which in this case refers to Great Inconsistency of the Set; i.e. Michigan’s Offense.

    The obvious reasons for this comparison is to give Michigan fans ‘hope’ that its still possible , given the Case History of PSU’s 2016 accomplishment, that yes Michigan’s Offense , when it gels, will be a parallel to ’16 PSU. However, the above albeit basic & simple statistical analysis comparison beyond PPG ave shows that there realy isn’t to much to compare………

    When one factors in Michigan’s inability to hang onto the ball, turnovers, the comparisons become more similar thru those first 5 games as each team had 10 & 11 to’s. PSU went on to play their next 9 games having only 9 to’s the rest of the season. We’ll see what happens re Michigan’s Offense regarding their current inability to hang onto the ball.

    IF Michigan can hang onto the ball the rest of the season against the very tough competition for the remaining season maybe they can give themselves an opportunity to repeat the achievement of that ’16 PSU team.

    The level of competition between ’19 Michigan & ’16 PSU can be argued as to being somewhat similar and PSU’s blowout loss on the road to Michigan is comparable to ’19 Michgan’s at Wisconsin. ’16 PSU, however, has a game data point that is hard to ignore: the 3 point road loss to Pitt in which PSU turned the ball over 4 times.
    That ’16 Pitt team also later in the season, defeated Clemson – at Clemson – and that ’16 Clemson team would be the eventual ’16 National Champions. It was impossible for anyone at the time to really understand just how good that ’16 Pitt team could be as thru the ’16 season Pitt was a very inconsistent team but they did in fact defeat the eventual Big Ten Champion in PSU as well as the ACC Champion and eventual National Champion in Clemson.

    This ’19 Michigan team has no games to date to compare with ’16 PSU ‘s ‘good’ loss to Pitt.
    Conclusions?……….INTJohn

  4. Avatar
    Comments: 338
    Joined: 12/24/2016
    INTJohn
    Oct 16, 2019 at 10:47 AM

    Awrite Morning Roundup, I have a few strays I gota rope & throw in the corral.
    First cause its Penn State week:
    I’ve seen the attempted comparisons of this seasons Michigan offense in terms of record & ppg with that of the ’16 PSU team who was 3-2 (4-2) and turned it around to eventually win the B10 Championship. I’m on record as not buying it at all. (This topic was also posted on MGoblog, too)

    That PSU team’s offense ppg average, outside of their loss to Michigan was very consistent with a Standrad Deviation of their PPG average being around +/-3 . A Standard deviation of the data points being this close to PSU’s ppg ave is an indication of valid data points, I.e Consistency to the Mean.

    Michigan’s Standard Deviation on the other hand is around +/-16 which when compared to the Michigan ave of 28 ppg @ +/- 16 ppg with a 5 or 6 game set of data points is a STRONG sign of statistical invalid data points which in this case refers to Great Inconsistency of the Set; i.e. Michigan’s Offense.

    The obvious reasons for this comparison is to give Michigan fans ‘hope’ that its still possible , given the Case History of PSU’s 2016 accomplishment, that yes Michigan’s Offense , when it gels, will be a parallel to ’16 PSU. However, the above albeit basic & simple statistical analysis comparison beyond PPG ave shows that there realy isn’t to much to compare………

    When one factors in Michigan’s inability to hang onto the ball, turnovers, the comparisons become more similar thru those first 5 games as each team had 10 & 11 to’s. PSU went on to play their next 9 games having only 9 to’s the rest of the season. We’ll see what happens re Michigan’s Offense regarding their current inability to hang onto the ball.

    IF Michigan can hang onto the ball the rest of the season against the very tough competition for the remaining season maybe they can give themselves an opportunity to repeat the achievement of that ’16 PSU team.

    The level of competition between ’19 Michigan & ’16 PSU can be argued as to being somewhat similar and PSU’s blowout loss on the road to Michigan is comparable to ’19 Michgan’s at Wisconsin. ’16 PSU, however, has a game data point that is hard to ignore: the 3 point road loss to Pitt in which PSU turned the ball over 4 times.
    That ’16 Pitt team also later in the season, defeated Clemson – at Clemson – and that ’16 Clemson team would be the eventual ’16 National Champions. It was impossible for anyone at the time to really understand just how good that ’16 Pitt team could be as thru the ’16 season Pitt was a very inconsistent team but they did in fact defeat the eventual Big Ten Champion in PSU as well as the ACC Champion and eventual National Champion in Clemson.

    This ’19 Michigan team has no games to date to compare with ’16 PSU ‘s ‘good’ loss to Pitt.
    Conclusions?……….INTJohn

You must belogged in to post a comment.