Stats are for losers

Gladstone

Total defense
1. UW, 240.9 yards/game
2. Alabama, 243.8 yards/game
3. Michigan, 245.3 yards/game

Yards per play allowed
1. UW, 3.71 yards/play
2. Alabama, 3.96 yards/play
3. Michigan, 4.17 yards/play

Scoring defense
1. Alabama, 9.8 points/game
2. UW, 11.1 points/game
3. Georgia, 11.7 points/game

Passing defense
1. Michigan, 142.8 yards/game
2. Air Force, 144.7 yards/game
3. UW, 149.8 yards/game

Yards per pass attempt allowed
1. UW, 5.0 yards/pass
2. Georgia, 5.3 yards/pass
3. Alabama, 5.4 yards/pass

Yards per rush allowed
1. TCU, 2.15 yards/play
2. Alabama, 2.51 yards/play
3. UW, 2.58 yards/play

TierbsHsotBoobs

Fuck. The shit OC and QB are wasting this defense.

Mad_Son

Like I don't really know math so correct me where I'm wrong but 94 points in 9 games is not 11.1/game..

phineas

"But I'd rather not go to the playoff so we can recruit in honolulu"

Gladstone

Mad_Son said:

Like I don't really know math so correct me where I'm wrong but 94 points in 9 games is not 11.1/game..

pretty sure the ncaa counts all points, so take away all the points our offense scored for our opposition and UW is #1 in that category as well

but why should johnathan smith be defenestrated?

oregonblitzkrieg

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

Gladstone

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

Ignoratio elenchi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.

Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2] It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]

Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation". In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi. Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point… "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy… For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’" … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it.[5]

— Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic
The phrase ignoratio elenchi is from Latin, meaning 'an ignoring of a refutation'. Here elenchi is the genitive singular of the Latin noun elenchus, which is from Ancient Greek ἔλεγχος (elenchos), meaning 'an argument of disproof or refutation'.[6] The translation in English of the Latin expression has varied somewhat. Hamblin proposed "misconception of refutation" or "ignorance of refutation" as a literal translation,[7] John Arthur Oesterle preferred "ignoring the issue", and [7] Irving Copi, Christopher Tindale and others used "irrelevant conclusion".[7][8]

Mad_Son

Gladstone said:

Mad_Son said:

Like I don't really know math so correct me where I'm wrong but 94 points in 9 games is not 11.1/game..

pretty sure the ncaa counts all points, so take away all the points our offense scored for our opposition and UW is #1 in that category as well

but why should johnathan smith be defenestrated?

I figured out my issue.. I thought UW was bolded on the scores I was looking at but winner was so I only counted 7 at ASU... but yeah, that's why I even started looking at this... to see what just our defense allowed...

pawz

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

Oregon will always be a signature win. Just ask your level of butt hurt.

Southerndawg

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

LebamDawg

Gladstone said:

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

Ignoratio elenchi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. More colloquially, it is also known as missing the point.

Ignoratio elenchi falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.[2] It is one of the fallacies identified by Aristotle in his Organon. In a broader sense he asserted that all fallacies are a form of ignoratio elenchi.[3][4]

Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation". In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi. Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point… "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy… For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’" … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it.[5]

— Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic
The phrase ignoratio elenchi is from Latin, meaning 'an ignoring of a refutation'. Here elenchi is the genitive singular of the Latin noun elenchus, which is from Ancient Greek ἔλεγχος (elenchos), meaning 'an argument of disproof or refutation'.[6] The translation in English of the Latin expression has varied somewhat. Hamblin proposed "misconception of refutation" or "ignorance of refutation" as a literal translation,[7] John Arthur Oesterle preferred "ignoring the issue", and [7] Irving Copi, Christopher Tindale and others used "irrelevant conclusion".[7][8]

DR - not that it was too long - too many big words

Gwad

Ohio State moved up to #2 after scoring zero points in the CFP. This is how the rankings work, its like a double secret loser stat.

Gladstone

Mad_Son said:

Gladstone said:

Mad_Son said:

Like I don't really know math so correct me where I'm wrong but 94 points in 9 games is not 11.1/game..

pretty sure the ncaa counts all points, so take away all the points our offense scored for our opposition and UW is #1 in that category as well

but why should johnathan smith be defenestrated?

I figured out my issue.. I thought UW was bolded on the scores I was looking at but winner was so I only counted 7 at ASU... but yeah, that's why I even started looking at this... to see what just our defense allowed...

I love you. Despite the lack drunken game thread poasts lately.

TierbsHsotBoobs

oregonblitzkrieg said:

Those are nice stats. Now lets review your signature wins:

Rutgers -unranked
Montana -unranked
Fresno State - unranked
Colorado - unranked
Oregon State -unranked
Cal - unranked
UCLA - unranked
Oregon - unranked

And your loss:

ASU - also unranked

All that being said, Jake Browning sucks.

Mad_Son

Gladstone said:

Mad_Son said:

Gladstone said:

Mad_Son said:

Like I don't really know math so correct me where I'm wrong but 94 points in 9 games is not 11.1/game..

pretty sure the ncaa counts all points, so take away all the points our offense scored for our opposition and UW is #1 in that category as well

but why should johnathan smith be defenestrated?

I figured out my issue.. I thought UW was bolded on the scores I was looking at but winner was so I only counted 7 at ASU... but yeah, that's why I even started looking at this... to see what just our defense allowed...

I love you. Despite the lack drunken game thread poasts lately.

Yeah, it's tough - teaching them to be self-sufficient against ASU, staying sober enough to drive while watching with azduck against UCLA, saying fuck it and just drinking, going to bed, and watching the replay against Oregon. Another tough one this Friday. I didn't even know I could hate the Pac 12 more but this season, with the ramifications of the tv deal, has taken me a new level.

theknowledge

This team reeks of '92 Arizona and the desert swarm. I think that team beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl 29-0 and finished 10-2. Ended our? 22 game win streak with a slugfest 16-3 offensive explosion. Two great defenses wasted. One with a truly shitty offense and the other ruined with a truly shitty coordinator/scheme.

Southerndawg

theknowledge said:

This team reeks of '92 Arizona and the desert swarm. I think that team beat Miami in the Fiesta Bowl 29-0 and finished 10-2. Ended our? 22 game win streak with a slugfest 16-3 offensive explosion. Two great defenses wasted. One with a truly shitty offense and the other ruined with a truly shitty coordinator/scheme.

Great analogy.

Pitchfork51

Now you get to look forward to your defense regressing while offense stays the same.

Swaye

This defense is fucking ELITE. Case closed. End of discussion.

backthepack

This defense makes me cum in sweats.

Southerndawg

Swaye said:

This defense is fucking ELITE. Case closed. End of discussion.

For once, the correct use of that word

Total DefenseLast updated - November 5, 2017 Through games of November 4, 2017

RANK TEAM
1 Washington
2 Alabama
3 Michigan
4 Georgia
5 Wisconsin

source: http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/22