The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

10 catches, 145 yards and 3 TD's in the Chargers' win over the Chiefs.
:bluethumb:

Quote:On a positive note

Are we still allowed these here? :D

I can not seem to remember him, How many TD's did he have for us? :D

The Charger fans ought to be outraged with only 83 total rushing yards, and the best rusher in the NFL with 69 yards!

Don't they know they are supposed to lose if they don't have a 100 YPG rusher?

If you know statistics, you know that "on average" does not mean always. 48% is not always, 68% is not always. However, as one who is known to place a wager every now and then, I will play the averages every time possible. I would love to start my new team with LT being the feature.

Quote:A team that has a runner who averages over 100 yards per game, wins 68 percent of its games.

Too much information left out to make a conclusive argument for me. What teams at what level? Average 100 yards per game over what time frame? Do they win 68% of those games, or 68% of some set of subsequent games?

To convince posters that 1) I have far too much time on my hands and 2) statistics can be fun (at least that's what Dr. Browne at Kent State told us :D ), one could infer from your statement that teams that have a rusher with over 100 yards in a game win 2 out of 3 times. ( I know there are interpretation options here, but play along. Why should economists have all the fun with numbers?)

Yesterday, six NFL teams that did not have a 100 yard rusher won: San Diego, Chicago, New England, Dallas, Tennesee, and Houston. Half of those teams, San Diego, Carolina, and New England, did not have 100 yards rushing as a team.

Six NFL teams with a 100 yard rusher won: St. Louis, Miami, Denver, Dallas, New York Giants, and San Francisco. Two of those teams, San Francisco and Miami, had leading rushers with less than 110 yards, but still meet the criteria.

So, this outcome would suggest that the test results showing a strong running game as a factor for winning as inconclusive. Bogus? Yes, because it's a sample of one day's games. But with the dearth of data in your statement, it's just as valid.

Flash Fan,
I hand it to you. You have taken trivial conversation relative to sport and made it the ultimate academic exercise. I am not sure that you are completely over my head with this, however, I am too lazy to respond on your lofty level. Anyway, you are a good sport and in some morbid way, this is fun. Speaking of morbid, Happy Halloweenie.

FlashFan,
If it is the same Dr. Brown, he is still at KSU going strong. While FlashFan and I are on a different side of the argument, GFlash68, I will say your point is extremely valid with the stat. But only talking about one aspect of offensive production is ignoring many other aspects. You can't convince me that the passing game (or offensive philosophy) was the reason KSU only won five games each of the last two seasons. I say only because it could/should have been more both seasons.

Of course, as we all know when it comes to KSU basketball, making 10 3 pointers a game is great but does not always beat the opponent with 3 3-pointers a game.

Quote:You have taken trivial conversation relative to sport and made it the ultimate academic exercise.

Hey, it's what Dr. Brown (e)? would have done! Blame him :D ( Don't know if it's the same guy, KStud, but he was a great professor. Turned so many college kids into quasi actuaries in their own minds. Imagine how they tortured their families on break!)

My point is only partially to humor...the other part is to say the game is going in a different direction. Yards after catch are as important as "rushing" yards in a spread offense...so tracking quality of a running game soley on run plays from scrimmage is limiting.

I care that we move the ball down the field. Whether it's due to a short pass and a run, a run from scrimmage, a bomb...I don't care. Move the ball.

How about this .... The best offense is a great defense.

If they don't score, you don't lose. And the defense is able to score points. The offense can do nothing to prevent scores.

I know our weak offense has put the defense in alot of bad spots this year but we have also seen a huge fall off in the defense since last year. No one here is talking about this. The way I see it the failure has been in discipline and leadership. Defense is alot of X's and O's but most of playing defense is "Want to". How bad do you want to fly around and pursue to the ball, make tackles, make big plays, and blow people up? I think with losing leaders in the secondary and linebackers (and now Sessler) we have lost the fire they had last year. Sure there is talent, but that doesn't get you far in the MAC because everyone is so even.

Yes a running game makes winning alot easier in most situations, but I am looking for the defense to step up.

The loss of Sessler demoralized me, I know that. I don't know about the team. Looks like it has, though. It is not the same team without him.