They seemed to misinterpret your comments to suggest that you were saying Geno was messing with the stats to some kind of advantage for him.
I don't think that they get that:
1. It seemed to be a UConn only problem and that there were actually 3 sets of data that didn't match, not just 2. It does seem to be a strange thing.
2. You were being sarcastic regarding Geno and the stats. You were just making fun of the fact that the stats didn't match and it seemed to be a UConn only problem.
Also, one poster mentioned Chris Masters posting on the ESPN board. I don't ever recall him posting there. I think they are confusing me with him.
Yes, it is funny (and telling) how messages are misinterpreted between the two boards, specifically in this case about the UConn statistics anomaly. I was thinking of having a "telephone" game between the two boards:
McGraw's Bench: "Geno Auriemna prefers to live in a universe of his own making rather than the one the rest of us share."
Boneyard: "the poster said that Geno was cheating."
I thought it pretty funny. Well, at least they are reading—comprehension is another story.
…and No—Oh wait, Oh wait. I need to pay more attention. (that telephone game again) I see what you are saying. Yes, I know nothing about the ESPN board. That could have been you. Are you wound pretty tight? :-)
I was kind of expecting the 2011 and later success to happen earlier than it did (I thought it should happen around 2004 or so), but it took longer than expected. There were one or two posters there who used to be serious jerk-offs (one I actually met in person, and he was actually nice then, but online he was a real dick).
By now, I suppose hardly anyone on either board understands what's going on, but it seems it was a tightly wound Chris Masters defending Ms. McGraw.
Could we strike up another chorus of 🎶 "Oh, the Irish and the Huskies should be friends." 🎵
me...like getting the whole football team to run laps because I screwed up....I won't tell you how many times that happenned.
Answers:1.No idea.but I am guessing 3.
2. Most ACLinjuries and Most players named Arike
I like this statistic!
but we are ND students, former ND students, or want-to-be ND students so buck up!), the answers are quite logical. Come on, what is Opponents' Winning Percentage other than which team faced the toughest schedule? We know that. And with our disastrous loss(es) and giving up so many points, it's pretty logical we would be high in the difference between a team’s actual winning percentage and winning percentage based only on points scored and points allowed. In other words we probably didn't have a great overall point differential but only lost 3 games.
By the way, thanks!
1. huh?
2. least fouls committed, most green shirts per game
1. Notre Dame finished first in Team Context Rating with 818 points (Baylor had 813 and UConn 797). (One of the few statistics where UConn did not finish first—another one being the NCAA National Championship.)
2. Notre Dame also finished first in these categories:
Opponents Winning Percentage (67.29%)
Luck (.309)
Note: Posters have sometimes complained about the inability to decipher when a poster on the Bench is being funny or sarcastic. This question was developed days before domerduck's post. Later I expanded it after the problem with UConn stats was discovered, so I was just kidding about the duck. Maybe the Bench enjoys being told the answer?