Team	Hansen	HSCTiger	Actual	Hansen Δ	HSCTiger Δ
RMC	3	4	1	2	3
W&L	2	1	2.5	0.5	1.5
E&H	5	3	2.5	2.5	0.5
SU	7	7	4.5	2.5	2.5
BC	6	6	4.5	1.5	1.5
HSC	4	2	6	2	4
GC	1	5	7	6	2
CUA	8	8	8	0	0
SUM	x	x	x	17	15

You probably had a better prediction than I did last year. You're pretty good at this. Ever consider trying it for all 27 conferences in the country? I think I could use some competition in the d3fb prediction market.

Might want to tidy this up. W&L was 2 because they had the h2H against E&H and Shenandoah was 4 because they had the h2h against Bridgewater.

1 for 3 = Cooperstown, 1 in 5 = Salón de la Fama. 1 in 4 = a happy median.

"That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium."  -- Bull Durham

Quote from: jknezek on June 17, 2017, 12:38:07 pm

Math is math my friend. The steadier the inputs, the steadier the outputs.

I get math. If your "formula" picks Mt. Union to win so be it. But if the same formula is projecting GC winning ODAC in 16 and they finish with 1 conference win, then maybe the formula needs adjusting.

I find it interesting when a "formula system" is so pathetically wrong and yet it's presented as somehow more reliable than an educated guess.

He did finish second in our regular season Pick'em last year and all the "regular" ODAC guys pretty much finished at the bottom. As he and I discussed last year, I'm not a fan of non-returning starter adjusted predictions, but W&L returned pretty much an entire offense last year from an undefeated team and still lost 2 conference games. On the other hand, Guilford graduated pretty much 2 whole units from a one-loss team and did about what many of us expected. Returning starters isn't an end-all, be all. Predicting the ODAC right now a difficult task.

I imagine the private military schools are also quite well networked.  There is a strong tradition of the families and social networks that attend them, no?  Quite a strong relationship between them and the schools that feed into them?

I don't really know. I don't think they are tied as closely to specific schools anymore as Catholic colleges and Catholic high schools. There are so few academic military high schools left in this country as most military high schools are more of a disciplinary thing than an academic in my experience. There used to be an Annapolis feeder school not far from where I grew up, but that one closed more than a decade ago. Farragut Academy maybe? I knew one kid from my h.s. who went there for a fifth year of h.s. to improve his odds of going to Annapolis. I remember hearing it paid off for him. I would guess that many of the state military colleges have family traditions at the least for sure.

Listened to the new episode of ATN, just wanted to say congratulations to Keith on getting married!

Also, I'm a little foggy on this maybe someone can shed some light: what are the perks of a student deciding to go to a private military college like Norwich or The Citadel?  If they're private does that mean kids are essentially paying to join the armed services (I know that some of those students are ordinary civilians)?  Why not go to one of the services academies?

You can get commissioned as a reserve officer, though it is not required. I know VMI and Citadel are tied closely to the VA and SC National Guard. But you do pay to attend though costs are more on par with state schools than private schools. One major difference is that you are not required to do military service after graduation.

I think many who attend could not go to the 3 national service academies. As W&L is literally attached by the campus to VMI I was familiar and friendly with more than a few Keydets both in school and after in my first job. They were not of the same academic caliber as the few kids from my h.s. that applied to the service academies, which is more a comment on those at the service academies than a knock on those at VMI. VMI and Citadel and the like are good schools, but West Point, the Naval Academy, and Air Force Academy are on a different level. Those young men and women are truly elite scholars with extra curriculars that are generally top notch as well. You need to get a recommendation from a Congressman to apply, and each Congressman only gets 2 recs a year (though I think there are a few more ways to gain application permission).

Coast Guard has the same requirements as the other 3 service academies, but as a lesser name it is easier to get in to. The requirements are still stringent, the campus is still beautiful and I thought about it way back in my junior year of h.s., but at the time they offered such a limited set of degrees I ended up not being interested.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on June 15, 2017, 08:52:38 am

Quote from: D3viewer on June 14, 2017, 04:54:43 pm

I wonder if Ithaca will ever get turf ?

I hope not. I like football when it's played on a football field, not a multi use field with colored lines everywhere. I understand why budgetary concerns make multi use fields a necessity, but there's something I just don't like about them when I'm watching a football game. But Ithaca built a state-of-the-art field with lights in 2011 for soccer, lacrosse, and field hockey, so I suspect they don't need it.

Endorsed.  Your football field should not look like a craps table.

Neither should your soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse field. But the reality is, for many schools, it is cost prohibitive to maintain surfaces for all these sports. Especially those that are in opposite seasons like lax and the fall sports.

Frankly I think soccer really loses something played on turf. I can't say the same about the other sports and think lax and field hockey are better on an artificial surface. Football has both pros and cons in my mind. Regardless, we might not like the aesthetics, but it makes financial sense to have multi-purpose fields, especially as colleges get financially squeezed.

I'm a fan but not knowledgeable.
Any comments on the current status on the team.

Looking better. They seem to be reacting better to Arena. The comments from players seem to indicate he is trying to provide more traditional roles and ties to U.S. historical strengths. I don't think the talent level has dramatically changed. Don't get me wrong, Pulisic is on track to be one of the best American players, but it is still early. And he is replacing one of the best American players in Landon Donovan. Dempsey is still working hard but aging, Altidore is a serviceable target forward and should have more impact now that we have a coach that is willing to let him play that role. The midfield has more creativity, but it seems like a bit less hustle.

American players are generally known for making up with their lack of tactical skill with great athleticism and desire. The current crop seems to have a bit more tactical skill, for example Nagbe, but less of someone like Zusi's dogged determinism to play both ends of the field.

Bradley is once again being played in the proper role, and you have to respect his beautiful goal against Mexico. But overall the defense seems somewhat in flux. I admire DeMarcus Beasley. I flat out love the heart the guy has always played with and was thrilled to see him in person in Chattanooga in January. But if he is needed as an outside back still, something is not right in the defense. We seem to have no end of towering, serviceable center backs, but outside backs are proving elusive.

Overall, there is no excuse for us not qualifying for Russia. With Panama and Costa Rica at home to go, and Honduras and T&T on the road, there is no reason we shouldn't pick up at least 7 to 9 more points. Since we have 8 right now, 15 to 17 points should be just enough for us to go through as the 2/3 qualifier in CONCACAF and avoid the two-leg fourth spot playoff.

15 points put Honduras through in 2014, Costa Rica finished second with 18, and we topped qualifying with 22. Mexico had 11 to make the home and home playoff.

Are we a better team than 2014 or 2010? It doesn't seem like it. We seem to have stalled out a bit after a long slow climb to the level we reached in 2010. We just don't have that quality that is needed to jump to the next level, clearly inside the top 20 teams in the world. I think we are pretty fairly inside the top 30, roughly, but we just lack the athletes, tactics, and individual talent across the field to push higher.