Does Kirk have a clue?

[seepig]

you beat me to it. its called a standard deviation. numbers in a series generally fluctuate within 1.5% of the mode. when numbers get outside that range they statistical outliers. Iowas attrition rate is well within the standard deviation of the big ten and all of d1.

who would've thought the statistics courses I took years ago in my masters program would really only get used on a message board about hawkeye football.

You and Hogeye are peas in a pod. six kids over or 8 or whatever if you have 2 -3 more per/yr. that translates into 11-12 by the time these kids are seniors...by my math GENIUSES that's the whole side of the ball that's half of a starting line up you dolts.

 

[hawkeyereed]

You and Hogeye are peas in a pod. six kids over or 8 or whatever if you have 2 -3 more per/yr. that translates into 11-12 by the time these kids are seniors...by my math GENIUSES that's the whole side of the ball that's half of a starting line up you dolts.

By my math those are kids that are not going to play for one reason or another. The program is built by hard working college kids, kids that want to put in the extra work in the weight room i.e. 39 for the NY Giants. The kids that have been transfering over the last couple of years in my opinion are not willing to do that. The kids that have bought into that philosophy over the last couple of years have been successful at the next level.

 

[MoseSchrute]

2009 Orange Bowl winner.

Only BCS level bowl win for Iowa in your lifetime and it happened little over 2 years ago.

dwelling on the past...get a grip on reality.

do you know what led to that success ("08, '09,'10)? 2006 and 2007 seasons playing a lot of young players.....ring any bells for you?

Helped by some MAJOR luck; and I don't see how '10 can be considered a success.

 

[Foval21]

You and Hogeye are peas in a pod. six kids over or 8 or whatever if you have 2 -3 more per/yr. that translates into 11-12 by the time these kids are seniors...by my math GENIUSES that's the whole side of the ball that's half of a starting line up you dolts.

By my math those are kids that are not going to play for one reason or another. The program is built by hard working college kids, kids that want to put in the extra work in the weight room i.e. 39 for the NY Giants. The kids that have been transfering over the last couple of years in my opinion are not willing to do that. The kids that have bought into that philosophy over the last couple of years have been successful at the next level.

the number they got and i got was 5 or 6 over a 5 year period which is 1 per year more than the average. you arent very good with numbers are you? i am actually a math teacher and i am telling you that statistically this is nothing to be concerned with because of what we call standard deviation. if you dont know what that is google it.

 

[imported_ankle23]

Helped by some MAJOR luck; and I don't see how '10 can be considered a success.

of course you can't. you are one of the most negative posters around. you'd probably even complain about being hung with a new rope.....although that complaint would at least stop after a few seconds.....

 

[MoseSchrute]

Oh sure buddy, a lot of people around here consider '10 a huge success. Get real. And I'm not negative all the time. It looks like we've got a good class coming in, and I'm actually going to be okay when Phil is announced as the DC. More than some can say.

 

[DarthKinnick]

Oh sure buddy, a lot of people around here consider '10 a huge success. Get real. And I'm not negative all the time. It looks like we've got a good class coming in, and I'm actually going to be okay when Phil is announced as the DC. More than some can say.

Good class = 40 or 50 national ranking?

I find your lack of win disturbing.

 

[MoseSchrute]

Hey, for Little ol' Iowa, it's looking like a pretty good class to me.

 

[jfwolfe]

Those changes that you speak were apparent but they were out of necessity of the talent level we had. Not because Ferentz and staff had wanted to try something new.

But I thought the staff didn't know how to adjust to the players it has on the field? And the offensive formations were not different because of poor talent. That won't fly.
I stand by the fact that the staff did adjust to what was on the field and that is the bigger deal to me.

 

[seepig]

the number they got and i got was 5 or 6 over a 5 year period which is 1 per year more than the average. you arent very good with numbers are you? i am actually a math teacher and i am telling you that statistically this is nothing to be concerned with because of what we call standard deviation. if you dont know what that is google it.

Uh good for you Mr. Math Teacher. Again while your stats may apply by running Monte Carlo modeling you are blind if you think losing 2-3 players per/yr. that could have ended up starters doesn't affect a team. Your statistical analysis is irrelevant here.

 

[Foval21]

every team has attrition. all i am showing you is that we are statistically not doing anything bad. over the next 5 years if we are 6 players under the mean would you realize that that would put us at the average for 10 years. every team has ups and downs. if you are going to use numbers to show how "bad" things are then dont be shocked when people show you you dont understand how those numbers really play out. if you go further out such as 10 yrs or 13yrs (the kf era) then you would have more numbers to show whether this is a rule or more of an abnormality. stats have deviations so people dont jump off ledges when there is a minor upswing or downswing in the numbers. they are meant to show trends. this trend statistically (which you brought into it) is not any tt0hing out of line with basic up and down swings.

 

[imported_ankle23]

Uh good for you Mr. Math Teacher. Again while your stats may apply by running Monte Carlo modeling you are blind if you think losing 2-3 players per/yr. that could have ended up starters doesn't affect a team. Your statistical analysis is confusing my simple mind.