Burn it With Fire or Sour Grapes?

Scary little guys

In spite of the recent recruiting success, our friend ProveIt has come to share some knowledge with the rest of us in form of a guest post. Be sure to tell him what you think of his article! 

You hear claims that the recruiting boards are biased, but never any details.  Are the boards truly biased and deserved to be cybernetically torched at every mention, or is this just sour grapes from fans in conferences with lower rankings?

A quick internet search of various analysis of their rankings show Scout and Rivals are notably more accurate than the others.  Rivals nominally edges out Scout in accuracy, but not enough to herald them king (usually only a couple of players a year differentiate the 2, and some criteria is questionable).

I don’t consider subjective as less accurate or more biased than objective.  An objective plus subjective analysis has the capacity to be much more accurate than a purely objective analysis.  An objective formula can be biased if the criteria are slanted.

Proving bias in a subjective analysis is difficult.  I looked at the objective rankings.

A Box Of Tissues For The NCAA

Screw the NCAA. Ha.

Ed. Note: Understanding the whole NCAA situation is no small task. Here's ProveIt with what we hope is his first of many guest posts here at ITS. Leave your thoughts and comments down below!

The laughable effect of the NCAA’s sanctions isn’t likely to give anyone pause. 3 scholarships a year for 3 years and a 1 year post season ban resulted in responses ranging from “…and what else? Over 1 year of investigation this is all?” to the ever popular sentiments “Bite me!”and “FFFFUUUU!”

What is less laughable is the rationale in the COI report (Committee of Infractions) though Tressel and the gear for tattoos there wasn’t anything new other than sanctions against Tressel.

The rest of the report starts with a false finding, and goes downhill from there…

Ohio State's 2012 Bowl Ban Isn't The End Of The World

Bowl ban? No biggie.

The pre-Christmas announcement of Ohio State’s 2012 postseason ban came as a shock to Buckeye Nation, who mistakenly assumed that the self-applied punishment of scholarship restrictions would absolve the program of all sins. 

The wave of Urban Meyer-induced euphoria that had enveloped Columbus over the last several weeks has subsided, and fans can finally look at the grim reality. A 6-6 season, with a loss in Michigan, is not a season worth remembering. A bowl ban for 2012 has hopes from Buckeye fans as gray as an Ohio November day. 

It doesn’t have to be that way.

Some Tests Are Too Easy

Ed. Note: Our friend ProveIt has accepted to share some knowledge with the rest of us in form of a guest post. Be sure to tell him what you think of his article!
Did your favorite sports site or sports writer get all excited when the BCS proposed eliminating AQ status? Well, so did I!


Was he excited when he quoted Delany as open to the idea? Well, so was I!

Does he claim it would create more opportunities for mid majors, would create fewer lopsided match ups, or would open the top bowls to everyone? If so, it’s time to find a new favorite writer.


The proposal to the BCS
Remove the 4 bowls from the BCS. The NCG would be maintained as a separate bowl, and the only bowl under BCS control. BCS AQ status is eliminated. BCS ranking would only be pertinent to the title game. The NCG might be freed to market its location much like the Super Bowl.

Delany stated here "As long as I can go to the Rose Bowl, I'm OK without automatic bids. If (CUSA commissioner) Brit doesn't want automatic bids, that's fine with me. And if he doesn't want me to have one that's OK, as long as I can go to Pasadena. If they (CUSA and MWC commissioners) are saying, essentially, let the system be market based, I can't object to that." This is the closest you may ever see Delany understating his support for an idea.