Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
We are not that bad on the road
The_Undertaker
Member Posts: 521
UW Doog pound excuse machine is getting out of control. Unbelievable.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/11/13/5092934/road-dawgs-evaluating-the-huskies-on-the-road-under-sark
TL;DR => the author, using a pseudo statistical analysis, is arguing that we aren't that bad on the road because we actually haven't really lost to teams worse than us.
The stupid part is that he uses end of the season computer rankings to determine whether the team we lost to was better than us or not. Hey genius, maybe the rankings wouldn't have that team as better than us if we actually didn't let them plunger us...
Oh and I hate all arguments of type "it's ok to lose to team X because they were favored anyway". Then I guess it's ok to be 1-11, 0-12, as long as the other teams were favored every time.... Morons...
Read the comment section, most people agree with the author except for a couple guys who try to explain them their argument is not valid. Everyone says we are vastly improved etc...
TL;DR , TL;DR => 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 3-3 is the only stat that matters
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2013/11/13/5092934/road-dawgs-evaluating-the-huskies-on-the-road-under-sark
TL;DR => the author, using a pseudo statistical analysis, is arguing that we aren't that bad on the road because we actually haven't really lost to teams worse than us.
The stupid part is that he uses end of the season computer rankings to determine whether the team we lost to was better than us or not. Hey genius, maybe the rankings wouldn't have that team as better than us if we actually didn't let them plunger us...
Oh and I hate all arguments of type "it's ok to lose to team X because they were favored anyway". Then I guess it's ok to be 1-11, 0-12, as long as the other teams were favored every time.... Morons...
Read the comment section, most people agree with the author except for a couple guys who try to explain them their argument is not valid. Everyone says we are vastly improved etc...
TL;DR , TL;DR => 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 3-3 is the only stat that matters
Comments
WHAT THE FUCK WHY ISN'T OUR RANKING BETTER THEN!? WHY IS SARK NOT MAKING US A BETTER TEAM YOU FUCKING DOLT!?
context matters Lear
If you’re in a class with a bunch of brilliant folks, you might answer 93 out of 100 questions correctly – i.e. do very well – but find yourself with only the 13th best score out of a class of 20. Does that mean you sucked on the test?
The Pac-12 is very strong in the upper half of the conference this year, and that should be taken into consideration.
Go Dawgs!
uwdawgpound.com
by Kirk DeGrasse on Nov 13, 2013 | 2:20 PM up reply
You don't want a coach that can beat better teams. Pat Hill could beat better teams. You want to be the better team.
Sark had his chance to build it. He failed. Case closed.
Fuck losing and Fuck rankings, ratings, and betting-prognosticator spreads.
On the whole, it doesn't appear that Washington played poorly on the road in 2009
Um, UW lost every road game that year. That is poor. HTH.
The avg doog (most anyway, imo) actually understands UW football is mediocre. But sees "incremental progress" where logical people do not...and believes Sark will get it done if we only give him the next fucking decade to get his guys in. They accept mediocrity because "it's better than 0-12".
Then there are the denial doogs. Those who are so fucktarded that they actually believe Sark is really getting it done.
Good example would be Jay Torrell from the dogman picks yesterday
"Please name any team outside of the top 15 that would have won one of those 3 games"
Umm....Utah? Notre Dame?
These poor delusional fuckers will keep drinking the koolaid and follow Seven as he leads UW football right down the drain.
There literally is no help for them.....
Drop the program down to the Big Sky where UW *might* be better than the other teams in the conference.
Yeah, UW isn't in the top 15. That's like the problem brah