Ian Berg has been a college football fanatic since he could hold a football. Ian covers College Football for Bleacher Report, and has been an Auburn Featured Columnist for three years. Berg thinks an early signing period is needed and that it will come—someday.
Ian’s work is found at Bleacher Report and shugjordanparkway.com. He is also the Co-host/Producer of the Shug Jordan Parkway Radio Hour on the Blog Talk Radio Network.
In his spare time, Berg enjoys a good beer and a ballgame, scanning statistics of the current sport that is in season and the History Channel. He also lands on Birmingham radio on occasion, chatting about the Auburn Tigers.
Hey thanks for the recruiting slide on the Gamecocks football page is there any updates?
Why do certain comments of mine keep disappearing off your articles? I don't curse, nor am I rude or vulgar. Please explain.
I see you finally corrected the integral vs intricate issue you seem to often have. Your lack of knowledge on anything outside of the SEC becomes more and more apparent with each article you write on the other conferences. It's incredible to see how you are still employed by a company on the rise. I'd love to see some articles on the Big Ten by someone who has a little bit of an idea of what they're talking about and does not get their info from a simple google search. Please let this man go Bleacher Report, I expect better, and It drives me crazy every time I see this man's name on an article.
Re; the discussion about Gunner Keil ---
2 of my comments disapeared. Please tell me why.
Nice job with your story about why Alvin Kamara should choose UGA over Alabama. Lots of good points in there.
You seriously need to watch this and then look at your article again
It's only right for me to mention that Ian responded promptly, very professionally and even elegantly to my previous and admittedly nit-picky criticism of his misuse of the phrase "an intricate part of." in several articles. I still stand by my comments--professional journalism should be held to high standards of expression, if only because so much internet fodder is painfully lacking in such standards. But it would be wrong of me to let my previous comments stand without pointing out that Ian apparently took them in the spirit in which they were meant instead of getting defensive, and that's admirable.
I made disparaging reference to your math skills in a response to your Heisman odds article and you were attentive enough to respond, even editing your article. Instead of being a jerk (as I probably was earlier, now that I read it) I'll try a more constructive approach.
First, let me congratulate you on an article that has already produce hundreds of comments and over 54,000 reads. You picked a great topic, jumped right in, and ignited passion aplenty. So let me do some quick work on your numbers, which are still amiss.
You have the young AtM qb at 4 out of 5 to win...an 80% favorite. But Teo is 60% and the dark horse is 40%. We still add up to 180%, so viewed that way, the numbers don't make great sense.
This much is clear, though. You like Johnny Football twice as much Klein (80 is 2 X 40) and though you think Teo's chances are 50% better than Klein's, you think Manzeil is at least 1/3 better than Teo is. Well there's a way to make numbers out of those gut feelings of yours (which, by the way, produce a pretty decent assessment of the situation, although I think Manzeil's odds should be better and Klein's worse). Without dragging you through the solution of a 3x3 matrix, here is your breakout:
You give the nod to Manziel with a 45% chance (that's 11-5 in the odds world, just short of even money)
You have Teo at 33% (that's 2-1)
and your dog is Klein, 22% (leaving the "gate" at 9-2)
Notice that 45% + 33% + 22% = 100%, so the numbers "add up." Johnny Football has odds twice as good as Klein and roughly 1/3 better than Teo (fractions were rounded up to the likely winner).
And recall that the "line," although stated as odds, is just a bookie's number which they move around to get the bets to even out so they won't get hurt to badly by long shots and won't pay out too much when smart money bets the favorite. I don't even know the "line" on this, but I'm sure Vegas has one.
It might even be even money that the next time I catch a BR writer in a math error I don't make an ass of myself trying to make him look bad. Sorry about that.
Hate to keep flogging a dead horse here, but here are links to two more instances where you've used the same phrase incorrectly--"intricate part of" something.
One is in your reply to a blog post comment, the second in another B/R article. I know I'm probably being pedantic but it's difficult to take your writing seriously when you make mistakes like this. Professional writing should be held to a higher standard.
Here's a link to an online database of common English usage errors, with the intricate/integral problem discussed, in case you don't want to take my word for it.