college football: shame vs success

[NovaScotian]

a fun graph:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart...089257/+kylenw

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Now that is a lovely iteration of that chart. I am particularly fond of the respective locations of us and our unfortunate rivals down the road. In fact, enjoy a spork, dear sir.

[weezie]

Our pals down the road would merely crow about being "recognized" near the powerhouse axis.
I'm sure they'll use it as a recruiting tool. Yeah a tool for signing more tools, that's it.

[blUDAYvil]

Our move to the "powerhouse" half of the graph in 2014 has unfortunately been accompanied by a departure from roughly the top decile of "admirable" programs that we had in 2013. You can see by clicking near the Duke icon in the following:

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...18002691523946

Obviously this attempt by the WSJ is an inexact science and I don't believe we've compromised (though I could be convinced otherwise if Duke's data on academic performance, funding etc. were available). It raises an interesting question: do you prefer where we are in the grid now vs. where we were in 2013?

[oldnavy]

In what world is UNC remotely near being a football POWERHOUSE?

This is what makes the mess over in CH so much worse... they sold themselves to the devil and got nothing but trouble in return.

Butch Davis and Larry Fedora have brought limited success and limitless damage to the UNC program.

Talk about a poor return on investment.

[Turk]

Wait, what? How is Climsin more "admirable" than the Devils?!? One of the criteria is 'overall "ick" factor'. Nothing that shade of orange should be ranked that high.

Penn State should start moving up now (yes, I opened up that can of worms. And yes, they'll have a better football team than unc). Ohio State is not admirable; they had kids trading signed football gear for tattoos. And how is Air Force below the "embarassing" axis? I could enjoy quite a few pints quibbling about the placement of quite a few schools. It would be a fun conversation.

[arnie]

In what world is UNC remotely near being a football POWERHOUSE?

This is what makes the mess over in CH so much worse... they sold themselves to the devil and got nothing but trouble in return.

Butch Davis and Larry Fedora have brought limited success and limitless damage to the UNC program.

Talk about a poor return on investment.

Great program summation. Both guys will bend/break any rule and players know it. Lack of true leadership will always deflate a program.

[sagegrouse]

Our move to the "powerhouse" half of the graph in 2014 has unfortunately been accompanied by a departure from roughly the top decile of "admirable" programs that we had in 2013. You can see by clicking near the Duke icon in the following:

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...18002691523946

Obviously this attempt by the WSJ is an inexact science and I don't believe we've compromised (though I could be convinced otherwise if Duke's data on academic performance, funding etc. were available). It raises an interesting question: do you prefer where we are in the grid now vs. where we were in 2013?

We're about 15th on the "admirability" meter, and Duke appears to be about 40th in the power index. There are only ten teams better on both metrics.

[wilson]

Ohio State is not admirable; they had kids trading signed football gear for tattoos.

In light of the growing chorus of voices pointing out the dissonance between billion-dollar profits on college athletics while the players themselves live on a shoestring, I think that opinion is waning in popularity. I certainly don't think that Ohio State football players are a bunch of choir boys, but I hardly think jerseys-for-tats is an indictable moral offense.

And how is Air Force below the "embarassing" axis?

Probably something to do with this: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26...er-sex-related

You certainly raise some good counterpoints, and it's an interesting dimension to discuss...pretty much exactly what the folks in the Deadspin office were trying to accomplish.

[JasonEvans]

It is so completely subjective as to be pretty much worthless. Someone should plot teams on something like the following graph.

X-axis: 40% win percentage over past 5 years, 30% percentage of times in a bowl games over past 5 years, 30% percentage of times appearing in final AP top 25 over past 5 years
Y-axis: graduation percentage over past 5 years multiplied by 10 (so and 85% grad rate would net you a score of 8.5), minus .5 for every player arrested for any crime over past 5 years, minus 1 for every minor NCAA violation over the past 5 years, minus 2 for every major NCAA violation over the past 5 years

I just made that up off the top of my head, but I think it comes close to how we would define success on the field (wins, bowls, national acclaim) and off (gradation, kids stay out of trouble, no NCAA violations).

-Jason "anyone got a few hours on their hands to look into this? Ha!" Evans

[sagegrouse]

In light of the growing chorus of voices pointing out the dissonance between billion-dollar profits on college athletics while the players themselves live on a shoestring, I think that opinion is waning in popularity. I certainly don't think that Ohio State football players are a bunch of choir boys, but I hardly think jerseys-for-tats is an indictable moral offense.

Ohio State: jerseys for tattoos? That's a misdemeanor. The problem was that Coach Tressel received a personal e-mail from someone warning him of the violation. Instead of sending it to compliance or the AD, he sent it to an adviser of the player involved. And then, if I'm not mistaking, dissembled about it. He got canned, of course, because -- all together now -- the coverup is worse than the crime!

I suppose there was some penalty to Ohio State that brought them below the Mendoza line on "honorability."

[BigWayne]

Wait, what? How is Climsin more "admirable" than the Devils?!?

Attendance is part of the admirability scoring.

[sagegrouse]

Wait, what? How is Climsin more "admirable" than the Devils?!? One of the criteria is 'overall "ick" factor'. Nothing that shade of orange should be ranked that high.
.

It's academics, due to the honor the players show to Howard's Rock, tocuhing it on the way to the stadium. It is named after long-time Clemson Coach Frank Howard. Hard as it was to believe, Frank Howard was Phi Beta Kappa at Alabama. Cut wasn't. There's the difference.

[77devil]

Our move to the "powerhouse" half of the graph in 2014 has unfortunately been accompanied by a departure from roughly the top decile of "admirable" programs that we had in 2013. You can see by clicking near the Duke icon in the following:

http://online.wsj.com/news/interacti...18002691523946

Obviously this attempt by the WSJ is an inexact science and I don't believe we've compromised (though I could be convinced otherwise if Duke's data on academic performance, funding etc. were available). It raises an interesting question: do you prefer where we are in the grid now vs. where we were in 2013?

Prefer 2013 obviously but the inset all but states that the drop on the admirable scale is based on presumption due to Duke's success on the field last season.

[Wander]

No surprise to see Penn State and UNC in the most embarrassing spots. Even though the plot is subjective, interesting to see that there's not a trend in the powerhouse-shame direction.

[Papa John]

In what universe can Indiana be considered toward the "powerhouse" end of the football program scale? They've been the doormat of the B1G from time immemorial...

Of course, whatever insane universe that is must be the one where Notre Dame falls in the middle of the "admirable/embarrassing" scale. I would like the writer to explain to me how a football program that tells it's national-championship-game starting quarterback that he needs to get his priorities straight by taking an entire football season off for academic issues, then follows it up by telling three more starters and two key reserves that they're going to need to sit out for a bit (and quite possibly the entire season, depending on how things pan out) while they conduct an investigation into possible academic improprieties falls in the middle of that scale. UNC, and every other team on the "powerhouse" end of the spectrum in this sham of a grid, would do well to take some lessons from Notre Dame on how to handle academic issues.

And Ohio State is "admirable"... Good grief!

[Henderson]

In what universe can Indiana be considered toward the "powerhouse" end of the football program scale? They've been the doormat of the B1G from time immemorial...

Of course, whatever insane universe that is must be the one where Notre Dame falls in the middle of the "admirable/embarrassing" scale. I would like the writer to explain to me how a football program that tells it's national-championship-game starting quarterback that he needs to get his priorities straight by taking an entire football season off for academic issues, then follows it up by telling three more starters and two key reserves that they're going to need to sit out for a bit (and quite possibly the entire season, depending on how things pan out) while they conduct an investigation into possible academic improprieties falls in the middle of that scale. UNC, and every other team on the "powerhouse" end of the spectrum in this sham of a grid, would do well to take some lessons from Notre Dame on how to handle academic issues.

And Ohio State is "admirable"... Good grief!

You are, of course, free to publish your own graph. I'm sure no one would quibble with your selections.

[Papa John]

You are, of course, free to publish your own graph. I'm sure no one would quibble with your selections.

Yes... Of course, I wouldn't engage in such a ridiculous and foolhardy exercise... Particularly if I worked for the Wall Street Journal... Guess the standards are slipping in their newsroom, too. C'est la vie.

[Henderson]

Yes... Of course, I wouldn't engage in such a ridiculous and foolhardy exercise... Particularly if I worked for the Wall Street Journal... Guess the standards are slipping in their newsroom, too. C'est la vie.

Well, you did take the time to criticize others' conclusions in that "ridiculous and foolhardy exercise". So you obviously aren't above engaging substantively on the issue.

The WSJ isn't exactly known for its sports coverage, but look at all the play that article is getting here. Somewhere Rupert is smiling and counting his coin. And that is the standard in their newsroom.

[Acymetric]

Well, you did take the time to criticize others' conclusions in that "ridiculous and foolhardy exercise". So you obviously aren't above engaging substantively on the issue.

The WSJ isn't exactly known for its sports coverage, but look at all the play that article is getting here. Somewhere Rupert is smiling and counting his coin. And that is the standard in their newsroom.

Journalists get paid in bitcoins now?