Please explain how a post which opines (accurately, I believe) about the quality of the teams in MAC is more accurate than points which I make.
No one's responded to my 'normalized' analysis year by year of our 2013, 2014, 2015 in which I disregard the cupcake games (the 'suckage' type teams) and state our record, noting the large losses to peer teams. Achieved by a staff in its 9th, 10th and 11th years. Maybe you'd care to do so--so that I can better understand why we have not mediocre?
Isn't it easy to blanket slam but more honest and refined to engage in specific analysis?
Your supposed 'normalized' analysis is anything but normal. You can't cherry pick what data to ignore. By doing so you create bias in the data set. Why throw out the easier games? If you do that then you need to balance it and throw out the harder games. That then leaves you with the average teams. You can't arbitrarily throw out data and suggest the resulting analysis and conclusions are valid in any way, shape or form. So I suspect that's why no one has responded to your biased and totally invalid analysis.
To the above and Ohio69.
First, my analysis, of course, is not perfect. Because no one's is.
But the thought that it's not fair to throw out the easy games seems to imply that all games are created equal. Which leads to an analysis with about no nuance.
I get slammed here for lack of facts/specifics and for the nature of my analysis.
Got news for you, pals. My analysis is reasonable. And reasonably accurate.
If not, then give me your analysis of 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Those are the most recent years of this staff and their 9th, 10th and 11th years.
Should we only judge the years and games in which they've done better,.
For the umpteenth time, the fact that you don't like me does not make what I write untrue.