Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Stats are for losers

Gladstone
Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
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
«1

Comments

  • Mad_Son
    Mad_Son Member Posts: 10,194
    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..
  • oregonblitzkrieg
    oregonblitzkrieg Member Posts: 15,288
    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


  • Mad_Son
    Mad_Son Member Posts: 10,194
    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...
  • LebamDawg
    LebamDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,861 Swaye's Wigwam
    Gladstone 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