(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Cat must suck for you right now... pathetic

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

(03-21-2016 09:27 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

(03-21-2016 02:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:27 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

"Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

(03-21-2016 03:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 02:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:27 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

"Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

Also the OOC schedule was really easy for you guys in those early years with normally 3 easy wins out of four. Just pointing out these things to make you think about it. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings but maybe you guys need to think about what needs to be done in order to improve.

(03-21-2016 04:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 03:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 02:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:27 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

"Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

(03-21-2016 04:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 03:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 02:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:27 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Oh I am not that sensitive. I am hardly on here constantly with blind defenses of BC athletics. That said, when I see a post here asking if BC is "overmatched" in the ACC - when they have finished in the top half of the ACC in FB since they joined - well, I am gonna have a few things to say.

Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

"Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

(03-21-2016 06:37 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 03:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 02:39 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Until proven otherwise the few years y'all had I would say they were not the norm. It seems 4-8 to 6-6 is a better depiction. I don't expect BC to be a top 25 team, like I do UNC, Miami, NCST, and VT. They should however, be a consistent bowl team that doesn't lose to G5 teams. I feel all ACC teams shouldn't be losing to G5 teams, except teams like Houston last year or Boise of years past. I just feel that some schools aren't pulling their own weight. Nothing against them I just think it needs to be shown that sitting back collecting a check isn't going to fly in this conference.

"Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

(03-21-2016 09:26 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 06:37 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 03:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  "Until proven otherwise? Really?? Below is BC's W-L record since 1999 - 17 years.
1999: 8-4
2000: 7-5
2001: 8-4
2002: 9-4
2003: 8-5
2004: 9-3
2005: 9-3
2006: 10-3
2011: 11-3
2008: 9-5
2009: 8-5
2010: 7-6
2011: 4-8
2012: 2-10
2013: 7-6
2014: 7-6
2015: 3-9

Over the course of 17 seasons, BC has won fewer than 7 games only THREE times. Two of those down years came as a result of a disastrous coaching hire. That enough to prove otherwise? Your claim that "4-8 or 6-6 is a better depiction" for BC is completely refuted by the facts. What is even more curious is your claim that UNC or NC State have done better. During this same 17 year period, UNC has won fewer than 7 games NINE times, while NC State has won fewer than 7 games SEVEN times!

Since it joined the ACC in 2005, BC has finished in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's and yet you are talking about BC "not pulling their weight"? You want to talk about programs not pulling their weight, why not focus on those schools who have fared worse than BC - basically half the conference?

Oh, and BC's games are carried throughout New England on NESN, the Region's cable network. So basically the ACC is covered in the 8th largest and one won the wealthiest markets in the country.

Sorry, I am just amazed by this. Either you are trolling me, or you don't bother to look at data before drawing conclusions; or is there something else driving this bias??

Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

Numbers don't lie, 5.875 is subpar. I can't make it any simpler for you.

(03-22-2016 06:43 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:26 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 06:37 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:03 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  Take away you first four years in the ACC like I said I feel is a fluke. Average wins per year is 5.875 a year. That includes any bowl wins you guys had. I don't feel this is insulting it's just facts. I said 4-6 wins a year, I feel 5.875 is within that range. I mean I'm just saying 6+ wins a year is what I would like from BC. It seems like you guys are happy with 5.8 wins a year. If so you really have low expectations.

See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

Numbers don't lie, 5.875 is subpar. I can't make it any simpler for you.

You are right - numbers by themselves don't lie; but biased analysis does. When numbers are cherry picked to support a bias, that is a dishonest analysis. I mentioned this before and I will repeat it again. What you have done, IMO, is equivalent to someone taking the last few seasons for the Boston Red Sox and proclaiming they are incapable of competing in MLB because, after all, "numbers don't lie."

Oh, and just for clarification, how exactly are you deriving your 5.875 number?

(03-22-2016 09:29 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:43 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:26 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 06:37 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 04:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  See, what you are doing is employing your own biases to form conclusions, irrespective of the data. You claim that BC's first 4 years in the ACC were a "fluke"......but in reality they mirrored the prior 6 years. Basically, BC won 7 or more games for 12 straight years before they suffered a losing season.

What you are doing is taking a couple of recent years and using that to indicate trended performance; but that's often a suspect methodology. You have to look at a substantially more extensive body of work to form more reliable conclusions. The shorter the sample size, the greater the volatility, with less reliable conclusions. ( Full disclosure, I have done this kind of stuff for a living.). I have used a sample size that includes both the 17 years that BC has been winning and also the 11 years they have been in the ACC. The numbers are as follows:

1999-2015
MEAN: 7.4 wins / year
MEDIAN: 8 wins / year

2005-20015 (ACC Record)
MEAN: 7 wins/ year
MEDIAN: 7 wins / year

What the numbers show is that, up to this point in time, the three losing seasons were the fluke, not the other way around. Again, if you want to look at programs "not pulling their weight", there are a number of other considerations for you - but BC is not one of them. (Now, if BC suffers a few more losing seasons in the next few years, the analysis and conclusions obviously change, but that is NOT the case as of today.)

Finally, the OOC issue is a bit of a red herring, IMO. Sure, BC has often had an easy OOC, but not much different most other ACC teams, quite frankly. Again, you seem to be employing different standards to measure BC. The questions is why?

In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

Numbers don't lie, 5.875 is subpar. I can't make it any simpler for you.

You are right - numbers by themselves don't lie; but biased analysis does. When numbers are cherry picked to support a bias, that is a dishonest analysis. I mentioned this before and I will repeat it again. What you have done, IMO, is equivalent to someone taking the last few seasons for the Boston Red Sox and proclaiming they are incapable of competing in MLB because, after all, "numbers don't lie."

Oh, and just for clarification, how exactly are you deriving your 5.875 number?

I've already stated how so I'll wait for you to have a better response.

(03-22-2016 10:05 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:29 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:43 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:26 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 06:37 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  In response to this whole thing we are only looking at the time in the ACC. Idc what any team did before they joined the conference. Once again I've stated others aren't pulling their weight as well. But to say that BC is blows my mind. I hope you guys get it together but between basketball and football you should be a little more worried than you are.

Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

Numbers don't lie, 5.875 is subpar. I can't make it any simpler for you.

You are right - numbers by themselves don't lie; but biased analysis does. When numbers are cherry picked to support a bias, that is a dishonest analysis. I mentioned this before and I will repeat it again. What you have done, IMO, is equivalent to someone taking the last few seasons for the Boston Red Sox and proclaiming they are incapable of competing in MLB because, after all, "numbers don't lie."

Oh, and just for clarification, how exactly are you deriving your 5.875 number?

I've already stated how so I'll wait for you to have a better response.

You have been unmasked, my friend. Doing exactly as you stated you did, cherry picking the last 7 years BC has been in the ACC and ignoring the first 4 years, the number calculates to 5.428 - not 5.875.

But again, you are just cherry picking numbers. I can take any subset of years and come out to whatever number fits my narrative. The objective method is to look at the TOTAL BODY OF WORK IN THE 11 YEARS IN THE ACC. But then again, objectivity has never been part of your analysis, has it?

BTW, this works both ways. If BC were to string back-to-back 10 or 11 win seasons together the next couple of years, they should still be measured against their total body of work.

BC isn't overmatched in the ACC. BC has a middle of the road athletic department. Like most ADs around the country, there are good years and bad years. If you put a gun to my head and made me choose, I'd say that BC is in the top half more often than not.

(03-22-2016 11:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  BC isn't overmatched in the ACC. BC has a middle of the road athletic department. Like most ADs around the country, there are good years and bad years. If you put a gun to my head and made me choose, I'd say that BC is in the top half more often than not.

Yes, that's an accurate assessment based on the results. There have been a few years where they were at the top of the Conference and a few years where they were at the bottom. Overall, however, they have been a middle of the pack program that sits at #7 in a 14 team conference in terms of cumulative W-L's since they joined the ACC in 2005

Very respectable. Hardly "overmatched"! They are pretty much in line with the vast majority of the Conference who are chasing FSU and Clemson.

The numbers are the numbers. Agree with your post.

I think BC can still compete in the ACC. I think BC and Wake are much a like and they both need to step up and accomplish ore with their sports teams.

(03-22-2016 11:08 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 10:05 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 09:29 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 06:43 AM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:26 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Yeah, I am not surprised at all by your response. IMO, it is a pure example of a cognitive disconnect. I work all the time with business clients addressing this very thing. In your case, you have a specific bias - BC has not pulled their weight in the ACC. I have given you many data points to disprove your claim, yet you ignore all of it because the facts don't fit your world view. In your response above, you indicated I was not looking at BC's time in the ACC, yet, if you read what I posted, I specifically gave data on BC's time in the ACC. Just look at what I wrote....8 winning seasons in 11 seasons in the ACC, mean and median numbers, comparative analysis, etc. All of these metrics clearly disprove what you are saying, but you double down on your statement.

Numbers don't lie, 5.875 is subpar. I can't make it any simpler for you.

You are right - numbers by themselves don't lie; but biased analysis does. When numbers are cherry picked to support a bias, that is a dishonest analysis. I mentioned this before and I will repeat it again. What you have done, IMO, is equivalent to someone taking the last few seasons for the Boston Red Sox and proclaiming they are incapable of competing in MLB because, after all, "numbers don't lie."

Oh, and just for clarification, how exactly are you deriving your 5.875 number?

I've already stated how so I'll wait for you to have a better response.

You have been unmasked, my friend. Doing exactly as you stated you did, cherry picking the last 7 years BC has been in the ACC and ignoring the first 4 years, the number calculates to 5.428 - not 5.875.

But again, you are just cherry picking numbers. I can take any subset of years and come out to whatever number fits my narrative. The objective method is to look at the TOTAL BODY OF WORK IN THE 11 YEARS IN THE ACC. But then again, objectivity has never been part of your analysis, has it?

BTW, this works both ways. If BC were to string back-to-back 10 or 11 win seasons together the next couple of years, they should still be measured against their total body of work.

It seems to me that it's important for him to focus on the last four years and falsely portraying them as the "norm" because he would like readers to also accept the premise that the last four years for Clemson have been the norm instead of the fluke.

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Guess you can't use that line anymore...although at least you are saying "not much" before it was "nothing".

(03-28-2016 12:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:27 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

Quit being so sensitive. He said he likes BC.

Dang, the way you are acting you would think you are one of the Syracuse fans on here that get butt-hurt whenever anybody even remotely says anything negative about their program that has thus far not brought much to the table.

Guess you can't use that line anymore...although at least you are saying "not much" before it was "nothing".

Congrats. Third year in the conference and you finally bring something to the table besides ******* coaches and message board posters that match.

BTW you are still 1-5 against Clemson in the one big sport and the medium sport.