Indoor practice facility

[tourist]

Yukon, all that would be unnecessary. Just get getgrizzy to change the title of the thread. The addition of " 'n Stuff" would do nicely.

[SoldierGriz]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

PR already posted lists and anecdotes, but I agree a few more will definitely get us to 17 pages, which is the topic of this thread.

[grizindabox]

Well anyway, you get the idea. Bottom line, Player is wrong.

The information shows that I was absolutely right. As usual.

PR, did you go back through every game for the past 20 years and note all the injuries and then separate them up by opponent level....or did you only pick a few FBS games and use that as the basis for your argument?

I have played and watched the sport. I have talked to coach and AD's. I have sampled the other evidence and stats.

What have you done? I know you have done nothing.

So no...

[PlayerRep]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

[Catsrgrood]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

[kemajic]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

[PlayerRep]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

The "sample size" of 7 is all of UM's FBS games against good (meaning non-bad like Idaho) FBS teams in the past 25 years or so, I believe. That's more than a sample of UM games against good FBS teams.

Feel free to call our attention to any of UM's FCS or D-II games that had even close to the number of injuries as the prior Oregon. My guess is that your sample size is zero.

After the Hawaii game, Fitzgerald, Hancock (2 weeks), Oliver (2 weeks), and Richardson (3 week) didn't play. No qb lost or hurt bad. No players out for season. Not a huge number missing the next game. Not as tough of a team as the Pac-12 and Big 10 teams UM played.

[PlayerRep]

This. Is. Gold.

So what if the injury that occurred happens as a result of non contact? IE landing wrong and tearing an ACL. Is this accounted for in all of this “data” being spewed everywhere?

I would presume a non contact injury wouldn’t have much to do with the fact a team is playing up, down or equal to their level.

Better run a full report on this and get at least 20 years of data, the injuries that occurred in every game, if they were playing up or down, what kind of injury it was (non contact or contact related), was the injured player a starter, did they come back after one game, 2 games or were they lost for the season?
Then we can actually compare some relevant data instead of cherry picking a handful of games, point out a couple injuries and then extrapolate that out to all college football games ever and call the conclusion “obvious”.

Can you get all that gathered PR?
Thanks

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

[SaskGriz]

All done. Risk of injury against top FBS conference teams and other non-bad FBS teams is is considerably higher.

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

[Paytonlives]

So how did this get from an indoor practice facility to FBS game injuries?

[kemajic]

So how did this get from an indoor practice facility to FBS game injuries?

An indoor practice facility doesn't provide such argument opportunity.

[kemajic]

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

That's a well-done challenge which will keep this going.

[PlayerRep]

Outside of your sample size of about 5, the proof is where again?

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

Your "data" is incorrect. Filled with mistakes.

You think losing an all-conference punter for the season isn't missing a starter for more than one game?

You think that the injuries at Oregon weren't significant?

You don't think losing the starting qb in 3 of the 7 games isn't significant?

You don't think Ah Yat's injury, which impacted him for the rest of the season, wasn't significant?

Feel free to show any UM game in the last 25 years where there were more injuries than Oregon.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly, you don't understand the game.

[PlayerRep]

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

That's a well-done challenge which will keep this going.

He made up most of his "facts". He didn't gather correct info.

Hey Kem, did you ever play D-I ball, or just Small College?

[SaskGriz]

Because he said so, he played the game and he talks to coaches.

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

Your "data" is incorrect. Filled with mistakes.

You think losing an all-conference punter for the season isn't missing a starter for more than one game?

You think that the injuries at Oregon weren't significant?

You don't think losing the starting qb in 3 of the 7 games isn't significant?

You don't think Ah Yat's injury, which impacted him for the rest of the season, wasn't significant?

Feel free to show any UM game in the last 25 years where there were more injuries than Oregon.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly, you don't understand the game.

No my data is not incorrect and no it is not full of mistakes. I will try to clarify it further.

Your assertion is that playing FBS teams leads to more injuries. Therefore I looked at sample size of 5 games and it appears it hasn't led to more injuries than any other 5 randomly selected games. You have to show that these five games lead to more injuries. Not that one game against Oregon had a lot of injuries, that would only prove your point if your assertion had been playing Oregon leads to more injuries.

You are confusing the definitions of significance - being worthy of note or important with significance; the extent to which a result deviates from the norm. Of course an injury to an all-conference punter is important but a single injury does not deviate from the norm.

Is losing your starting QB in a game against Iowa more significant than losing your starting QB against Savanah State? Neither one is more significant in either definition of significance.

[AZGrizFan]

So how did this get from an indoor practice facility to FBS game injuries?

You’re welcome. We’re gettin’ this bitch to 17 pages com Hell or high water!!!

[AZGrizFan]

So how did this get from an indoor practice facility to FBS game injuries?

An indoor practice facility doesn't provide such argument opportunity.

I made a tongue-in-cheek comment about things that get repeated despite their untruthfulness and PR took the bait and ran with it.

You don’t hit a home run every time up, but this was a doozie.

[SoldierGriz]

This bitch is going to 17 pages because PR is getting schooled by a Canadian and a genius who apparently played "small school ball."

I've seen some douchnozzle posts on this board, and there are a bunch in this one....

17 pages...get er done.

[IdaGriz01]

This bitch is going to 17 pages because PR is getting schooled by a Canadian and a genius who apparently played "small school ball."

I've seen some douchnozzle posts on this board, and there are a bunch in this one....

17 pages...get er done.

Doing my part ... three to go

[PlayerRep]

And the evidence and data from UM's tougher FBS support the assertion. And, no one has provided any evidence or data to the contrary.

I might be a fool for trying to keep doing this, it must be the educator in me. So here goes one last time.

I have provided evidence and data to the contrary. Your assertion is that playing up results in more injuries than would be expected from FCS or playing down.

I looked at the last 5 FBS games (UW, Wyoming, Tennessee, Iowa, and Oregon) The breakdown is in an earlier post.

These are the FACTS.

1. In all 5 of those games put together we lost ONE starter for more than ONE game. That was Loren Utterbeck who missed half the season.

2. We lost our punter for a whole season in one of those years.

3. We lost a back up safety on special teams for the rest of the season in one of those years.

4. We WON all FIVE of the games we played in the week following those 5 play up games.

Pick any other randomly selected 5 games and you will see similar injury patterns.

And no matter what press secretaries may say, there is no such thing as alternative facts, there are just facts.

Your "data" is incorrect. Filled with mistakes.

You think losing an all-conference punter for the season isn't missing a starter for more than one game?

You think that the injuries at Oregon weren't significant?

You don't think losing the starting qb in 3 of the 7 games isn't significant?

You don't think Ah Yat's injury, which impacted him for the rest of the season, wasn't significant?

Feel free to show any UM game in the last 25 years where there were more injuries than Oregon.

Like I said, you don't know what you're talking about. Clearly, you don't understand the game.

No my data is not incorrect and no it is not full of mistakes. I will try to clarify it further.

Your assertion is that playing FBS teams leads to more injuries. Therefore I looked at sample size of 5 games and it appears it hasn't led to more injuries than any other 5 randomly selected games. You have to show that these five games lead to more injuries. Not that one game against Oregon had a lot of injuries, that would only prove your point if your assertion had been playing Oregon leads to more injuries.

You are confusing the definitions of significance - being worthy of note or important with significance; the extent to which a result deviates from the norm. Of course an injury to an all-conference punter is important but a single injury does not deviate from the norm.

Is losing your starting QB in a game against Iowa more significant than losing your starting QB against Savanah State? Neither one is more significant in either definition of significance.

Sorry, but your data was wrong for all or most of the games. You either made mistakes or just lied.

Feel free to pull your data into one thread, and I I will show you where it was wrong.

Losing 3 qb’s in your 5 games is huge. UM doesn’t lose qb’s in 60% of its games. Do you not understand percentages? Do you not understand that getting your all-American QB who took you to the national championship hurt, is a big deal, when the AD and coach say it may have cost a national championship is strong evidence?

It’s hard to argue with someone like you who insists that up is really down, and east is really west.

I’m sorry but your stats combined with mine, clearly show that I, and others in this thread, are right.