ncsu1987

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 25 posts - 226 through 250 (of 322 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #61202
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Youth and talent, a roster is being amassed. The corner is coming, and it’ll be a sharp turn.

    I have thought this myself, but could never have been so succinct and clear. Thanks.

    From the outset, I thought we’d see small improvement year 2, more the same in year 3, and the sharp turn would be year 4, with a substantially better year. But I also assumed that Coach would have to burn more redshirts than he has and would be forced by circumstance to play more senior players rather than youth. From my perspective, it appears that he came in with a not-quite-salt-the-earth mission and, to his credit, is largely sticking to it.

    Just curious if you agree with this assessment and, if so, does it portend sharp corner turning ahead of my originally thought time line?

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #61014
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Wow. Unbelievable sequences. Just don’t know what to say.

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #60972
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    14 rushing attempts, 10.8 average gain for GT so far. Gotta find something different on D.

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #60970
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Fu…dge.

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #60965
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Great drive this time!

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #60950
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    I’ll take it, nice job by offense to scratch and claw for that touchdown. Really nice persistence.

    in reply to: No More Losing Streak WOO! Game Thread (Pack/Bees) #60944
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    GT offense looked very efficient. State’s……..does not.

    -Captain Obvious

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Grey: using either national or conf rankings (or both) is equally easy. Adding GT’s current ranking would be very easy, but trying to reconstruct GT’s historical rankings would require additional research.

    Ask away (just to be sure I see where this is heading…)

    Oh, and BTW, just to be clear, after re-reading your original request, you actually asked for a moving average. What I’ve charted is the raw data. If there’s need for an actual moving average, I can do that, but it will have to post as a separate chart. The sparkline charts are so small that in my experience if you try to overlay them, they quickly become unusable.

    Let me know.

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Sorry, should have mentioned, those are game by game national rankings.

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Here’s a first stab at something relatively easy to maintain:

    Is this useful? Note: this preserves the order in WV’s weekly posts.

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    ^Any particular stats you have in mind for trending? I can put this together (and I have a little time), just will take longer if the answer is “everything”.

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    ^Yes, please.

    Based on stats, team strengths appear to be discipline (penalties, turnovers) and special teams. 3rd down conversion on offense continues to outperform the rest of the offense. Red zone defense continues to outperform the rest of the defense.

    in reply to: Playing for Bowl Eligibility vs. Georgia Tech #60765
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Those of you expressing this sentiment, please elaborate.

    I shouldn’t have made a blanket statement without some degree of explanation. I was really looking at this from a macro level – I believe that one key to the game will be our ability to get the defense off the field. Not necessary to get 3 and out’s every time, but limit each possession to a few first downs while minimizing the big plays. To see what to expect, I looked at the following stats:

    GT, 3rd down conversion pct, offense: 0.574, rank 1st
    NCSU, 3rd down conversion pct, defense: 0.504, rank 121st
    (Note: this is the same stat mentioned by Va, above…)

    and less importantly,
    GT, 4th down conversion pct, offense: 0.750, rank 11th
    NSCU, 4th down conversion pct, defense: 0.500, rank 57th

    I did see that GT has only attempted 12 4th down conversions this year, but this is likely correlated to their high 3rd down conversion rate.

    Foose: I absolutely agree that individual matchups, game psychology, and game prep can throw all macro stats out the window. But I don’t have sufficient football acumen to evaluate individual matchups, so I use what I “understand”. I greatly appreciate, however, the counter viewpoint from a lower, more granular and decidedly more knowledgeable level.

    in reply to: NC State frontcourt getting national press #60716
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    ^ Literal spit-loller. It’s a good thing Macs are durable.

    The only thing more sure is that after working into a frenzy of expectations, as soon as the squad drops the first game, there will be a dive of despair, up to and including armchair personnel suggestions and wailings about the staff being over their heads.

    Fortunately, hysteresis will eventually bring us back.

    Rick, I’m still chuckling. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

    in reply to: Playing for Bowl Eligibility vs. Georgia Tech #60704
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    It would appear that GT’s offensive strength will be matched with our defensive Achilles heel. As stated above, the key to the game will be can State’s defense get GT offense off the field.

    If the D can play at a higher level (like last Saturday) I see an inkling of a chance. Likely the game will come down to turnover margin and field position. Baumann will give an edge in field position. Final concern is the uptick in penalties, especially costly ones, during the game last week. Not sure if that’s real, or just an artifact of that disgraceful crew.

    ncsu1987
    Participant

    ^Not to mention the losses in revenues…

    in reply to: UNC Becomes A Literal Punchline On SNL #60014
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    I personally think that we should hang banners for our ACC basketball title game losses to UNC in the Finals. The ACC may not award us with the titles, but they will hang there with a reminder that UNC did in fact cheat when they won those years.

    If nothing else, maybe it becomes a discussion point for 20-30 years down the line when all of that has been neatly swept under the rug by UNC.

    Gotta admit, my first reaction to this was to roll my eyes. But, the more I think about it, the more I’m coming around. I get the whole argument that vacating wins doesn’t award victory to the other team, but I guess I fundamentally disagree with that philosophy. In addition, I don’t see a huge difference between awarding ourselves ACC championships and UNX awarding themselves the Coastal Division title. And, thanks to UNX, the precedent has been set: the conference office clearly has no problem with it…

    in reply to: The UNC Coaches Should’ve Known #59849
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    ^Hey, Alpha. Wasn’t clear to me: do you like WRAL or not…?

    LOL. Preach, my friend.

    “WRAL is Carolina through and through, no matter what they say”

    Exactly. Self-referential Carolina Way. Say one thing, do another. Classic.

    in reply to: The UNC Coaches Should’ve Known #59847
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    My bad, wolfman1. Reading comprehension fail on my part.

    I’ve been told (from someone who would know) that Dean doesn’t even remember he was a basketball coach anymore. Very sad.

    Nobody deserves that. Not him, not his family. Nobody.

    in reply to: The Reckoning #59717
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    LOL, yeah Vitale’s been a real disappointment to me. I love the work he does behind the scenes. Over the years his shtick devolved from the original wacky, colorful, occasionally insightful commenter to the ESPN/UNC/Duke shameless promoter, and it just got to be too much. Haven’t suffered through one of his games in years (usually turn the volume down and turn on the radio, or just play some music). Used to follow him on Twitter (again, mainly because of his charity/event updates) but unfollowed him after his insufferable position during the PJ Hairston “unpleasantness”.

    in reply to: The Reckoning #59713
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    The air was a little more crisp this morning on my walk, the stars twinkled just a little brighter, the coffee tastes a little better…

    Another aspect of this I don’t get. Part of UNC’s spin is to position themselves as reform leaders, paving the way for everyone to follow. In the wake of everything that has been revealed over the last four years, and in recognition of the vast mountain of circumstantially suspect but unproven shenanigans, why on Earth doesn’t the media laugh them off the stage when they start spouting that crap?

    in reply to: Wednesday … the NEW Friday!! #59624
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    And then there’s this:

    In addition to Reynolds’ grade guidance, our email review disclosed several instances where Boxill made specific grade suggestions for her women’s basketball players. In September 2008, for example, Boxill forwarded a paper on behalf of one of her players, to which Crowder responded that “[a]s long as I am here, I will try to accommodate as many favors as possible,” presumably signaling her willingness to grant grade requests up to the point of her retirement. As to that particular student’s paper, Crowder then said “Did you say a D will do for [the basketball player]? I’m only asking because 1. no sources, 2, it has absolutely nothing to do with the assignments for that class and 3. it seems to me to be a recycled paper. She took [another class] in spring of 2007 and that was likely for that class.” Boxill replied “Yes, a D will be fine; that’s all she needs. I didn’t look at the paper but figured it was a recycled one as well, but I couldn’t figure out from where.”

    in reply to: Wednesday … the NEW Friday!! #59623
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Most damning to me so far:

    For the purposes of their review, the Experts defined unoriginal content as content of a paper that was taken verbatim from other sources as opposed to having being written by the student. Their full report is attached at Exhibit 35 but their top-level findings are as follows:
    ? In over 40% of the 150 papers (61 papers), 25% or more of the text was deemed unoriginal.
    ? In 17% of the 150 papers (26 papers), 50% of the text was deemed unoriginal.
    Of those 61 papers with 25% or more of unoriginal content, the average grade was a 3.69 (or almost an A-).

    As I take it, this was the “originality analysis” that Wainstein asked external experts to do on a sampling of papers provided for these classes before their grades were assigned by Crowder.

    in reply to: Wednesday … the NEW Friday!! #59607
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    Wow. Just Wow. Mea culpa.

    in reply to: Wednesday … the NEW Friday!! #59604
    ncsu1987
    Participant

    OMG guys, seven minutes to MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT.

    LMAO.

Viewing 25 posts - 226 through 250 (of 322 total)