Chris has yet to fill out a bio.
make sure u keep ur OSUcks buddies in ur page or else DA U will hav to cum in packs drag these fools remember wat i said. aite. ps suckeyes suck
Chris I am aware of your "relationship" with David Fitzgerald II. His "golf clap" comment in particular. I would ask you to read his "article" concerning the Bucks versus the FAMU Rattlers. Pay attention to the comment section. I find it very interesting that david tries to take the high ground and then turns around and makes fun of the tragedy that the marching band of FAMU had to endure. Just a heads up from one buckeye to another.
Chris, dude you are over the top. Even though I don't know you personally I really do mean this as someone who cares. You should see someone about your issues. First of all, let me apologize for the a$$hole comment. I said that after reading too many of your comments to others including the br writers. You clearly are a very loyal and dedicated Buckeye fan and that I can respect. What I can't respect is how you respond to anyone that disagrees with you or writes something that you feel somehow makes them a troll or as you often say - a hater. The Ohio State BR site is not a private club where only loyal Buckeyes can post there views. The BR sites no matter the school or sport are open to anyone who wants to write something. A lot of us have posted recently to the Michigan site. Most of us keep it clean and just poke a little fun at our arch rival. It's not a life or death match. It's only football. It's a game - get it. You take everything way to personal and it shows in your posts. You need to get over the fact that BR turned you down as a writer. You mention it way to often and clearly can't get past it. You certainly have a talent for statistics and have a keen eye for the game. You should use it more in a positive way. If you want to get an idea of what I am talking about, go to the Michigan BR site and read a couple recent articles that fellow Buckeyes have gone on and for the most part taken mild jabs at. One is Adam Biggers article on Sept 15. Another is Sebastian Lena article on Sept 14. These are Buckeyes or trolls as you would call it that are taking shots at the Blue in a rivalry kind of way. They are not haters as you would call it. They are just talking smack. Most (not all) don't get the way you do. It's mostly fun for most of us. As I said, a lot of your stuff is over the top. You really should discuss this with someone that you know personally that will give you an honest opinion about how you can be sometimes. It looks like others in the posts below this have made similar comments. Good luck.
Chris, I thought I will throw this out to you. I don't know if it would make a difference but do you wonder if Johnny Football was black would all the cries to change the rules be heard? It seems the guys from OSU got hit hard and maybe so much time has passed that I have forgotten but was there a major push to change the rule called out at that time?
Hey, Chris! Thanks for the comment on my bulletin board! I loved it (yes, I read it all)! :)
The two questions you asked were definitely good ones, and here are the answers:
1. "How did you come up with the point system that was so fair, etc.?" --The assigning editors gave me the piece, and they had a few qualities that they wanted me to look at (margin of victory, win/loss record, etc.). They didn't tell me how to grade them, but the fact that they gave me criteria let me focus on the formula as opposed to spending a bunch of time figuring out what "measurables" would work and what wouldn't.
I wanted to make sure that each section was graded so that they all counted equally overall. The national championships were worth the most of all single games by far, as they should have been, but teams weren't going to get an unfair amount of points for any single game (even a title).
As far as actual points, I had a good idea of what I wanted to do but had to alter the points as I went along. (At first, NCG wins were worth 100 points, but that didn't do a good job of grading overall success, just championships, so I cut the title points to 10.)
As I adjusted the NCG points throughout the piece, the rest of the points kind of settled themselves. (Conference championships, BCS wins/losses, etc.) For instance, the margin of victory was simple enough. Dividing by 100 allowed that factor to weigh equally with the rest. (Otherwise, Boise would have run away with the competition.) (While I wanted to recognize Boise's incredible success, point margin isn't the most important factor...for more information on that, I'll post the link to my next piece on your board.)
Overall, my goal was just to make every factor equally important without having the totals get ridiculous. (That's the basic idea I start with every time, if possible.)
2. "How long did it take to come up with the system?" --Honestly, about 30 minutes for the first draft. Adjustments along the way added another 15 total minutes at the most. So, a total of 45 minutes from zero to the final equation. (The longest part was going in and changing each metric as it had to be adjusted, but even that was just changing a formula in an Excel spreadsheet.)
3. "Did you think that Ohio State was #1 and basically make it happen?" --No. I always operate under the assumption that the proper formula will give the proper answers. It kind of sucked to see one of the greatest dynasties in college football history (2009-present Alabama) end up at #11, the formula speaks for itself and covers 15 years of football, not four or five.
Recent success creates an inherent bias toward any given team and against others. Alabama and Ohio State are perfect examples. Ohio State hasn't done much in the immediate past (aside from the 12-0 season, of course), so people are like "Why are the Buckeyes that high?" Alabama has three out of the last four championships, so people naturally want to see them higher.
The correct formula will always fix bias, even if people take issue with portions of the results.
Thanks for the great questions, Chris, they were a blast to answer!
Hey Chris, just writing to make sure you are OK. You've commented (positively and negatively) on articles in the past, but not with the vitriol that you displayed in the most recent comments. We all have bad days, but you need to avoid being so over the top that people dismiss your comments as "just another Buckeye troll" or the like.
I have the right to deal with trollish comments like the one Ryan left for me ("Bleacher Report writers are sad. This article is basically pathetic...") in any way I see fit. Usually if I poke back in a good-natured way, most people get into a real dialogue about what they were really thinking. Ryan did this as well, getting to his specific disagreement about the Michigan State O line being on the list. That leads to substantive debate and conversation, and is a positive result where we otherwise just would've had an ignored trollish comment.
All of us who contribute via comments or articles on this website do so because of a passion for the game. It's not a job, nor should it be treated like one unless you really need to get serious about paying the bills with sports writing. So keep the passion, and keep on disagreeing with my substance, but I request you keep the personal attacks and vitriol away from these forums. It's simply not worth the time.
Well, I'm glad to hear you're getting the help you need. Just remember the first step is admitting you have a problem and don't forget your Serenity Prayer.
preach brother, preach . You have some anger management issue you should probably work out. lol
Some of your post to me is a diatribe of hate, the very thing of which you accuse me, and you admit it openly, even suggesting you know it's irrational.
Except for me posting a very few, intentionally over-the-top hyperbolic pieces of sarcasm, strictly for emphasis, my posts are fact-based and respectful. I've not said anything about Miller that I haven't said about D-Rob, namely, great runner but inconsistent passer. So, it remains to be seen whether he overcomes that or makes no progress and joins D-Rob. Now, that's about as incisive and objective as it gets, and it's dead-on accurate.
Why not address specific issues with me, instead of a 718 word attack that makes only general references, absent specifics, and allows no real discourse from me back to you?
Again, I challenge you to find my "hate". You put a lot of vitriole on paper, but virtually all of it accusation and no substance. My posts are incisive and objective for the most part. The only time thy're not, which is rare, is when I'm being intentionally sarcastic with some hyperbole.