Griz have one of toughest schedules in FCS

[AZGrizFan]

Playing Oregon, and playing well, has made us a better football team. Our ranking improved and Oregon's went down. There has yet to be any statistically significant data provided that playing FBS games increases injuries. If all you can claim is an anecdote (Rensvold), I can counter with Phillips, who played the Washington game (where we did not play well) without incident, then went down the next week to a career-ending injury to Savannah St.

This response didn't answer any of the questions that I asked.

I don't know how a single player remaining healthy during a game strengthens your argument I guess. In any game, players should remain healthy, but it's a significant detriment when players get hurt.

It strengthens his argument just about as much as a single player getting injured strengthens yours.

 

[grizindabox]

Because it doesn't matter. When does a FBS school play a D2 or NAIA school? Exactly.

Are there any opinions on egriz that do matter? Does Coach Hauck check this board and make decisions based off what anyone says? Exactly.

But you continue to post on here ignorant to the fact that bigger, faster, and stronger teams will cause more injury to teams that are lesser of those 3 variables. You know more injuries would be caused to those NAIA schools if a said game were to be played. It's the same thought process but on a smaller scale because althought the differential is less between FCS schools and FBS schools, there is still a differential.

In your original hypothesis, you stated there would not be a significant correlation, but to any one that knows anything about football, 1 injury to a starter is significant.

Do you really believe that the top 30 guys on the Griz are so weak and nonathletic when compared to the top 30 guys at Oregon that they should be scared of getting hurt? If so, maybe they shouldn't play. My take, is that the difference is so minor, it is insignificant when it comes to injuries, and a guy has pretty much an identical chance of getting hurt playing down as playing up. As for your example of NAIA vs FBS, dude, that is like unicorns, it is a fairy tale, it doesn't happen.

Never did I say they should be scared of getting hurt, but didn't you see we got beat by 35. That's just a better football team that's not coaching that's one team being bigger, faster, and stronger.

The argument is whether there is an increase in probability of injury or not. I don't think its a great reason to not play those teams, but that is what is being discussed. My example is the same exact thing only taken to a more extreme end of the spectrum, but you won't answer it because you know it's true the NAIA team would suffer more injuries if there were a large enough sample pool. Insignificant or not it's increased and it's that simple.

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

 

[AZGrizFan]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

 

[AZGrizFan]

Based on your "scoring" model, ISU, Monmouth and UCD probably shouldn't play us anymore either...because that score differential proves we're bigger, faster and stronger and they have an increased likelihood of getting hurt...

 

[Missoula223]

Playing Oregon, and playing well, has made us a better football team. Our ranking improved and Oregon's went down. There has yet to be any statistically significant data provided that playing FBS games increases injuries. If all you can claim is an anecdote (Rensvold), I can counter with Phillips, who played the Washington game (where we did not play well) without incident, then went down the next week to a career-ending injury to Savannah St.

This response didn't answer any of the questions that I asked.

I don't know how a single player remaining healthy during a game strengthens your argument I guess. In any game, players should remain healthy, but it's a significant detriment when players get hurt.

It strengthens his argument just about as much as a single player getting injured strengthens yours.

Football players play hundreds of plays a week during practice and during the game. Thousands over the course of a season. Not getting injured is a lot less significant than getting injured.

 

[Missoula223]

Are there any opinions on egriz that do matter? Does Coach Hauck check this board and make decisions based off what anyone says? Exactly.

But you continue to post on here ignorant to the fact that bigger, faster, and stronger teams will cause more injury to teams that are lesser of those 3 variables. You know more injuries would be caused to those NAIA schools if a said game were to be played. It's the same thought process but on a smaller scale because althought the differential is less between FCS schools and FBS schools, there is still a differential.

In your original hypothesis, you stated there would not be a significant correlation, but to any one that knows anything about football, 1 injury to a starter is significant.

Do you really believe that the top 30 guys on the Griz are so weak and nonathletic when compared to the top 30 guys at Oregon that they should be scared of getting hurt? If so, maybe they shouldn't play. My take, is that the difference is so minor, it is insignificant when it comes to injuries, and a guy has pretty much an identical chance of getting hurt playing down as playing up. As for your example of NAIA vs FBS, dude, that is like unicorns, it is a fairy tale, it doesn't happen.

Never did I say they should be scared of getting hurt, but didn't you see we got beat by 35. That's just a better football team that's not coaching that's one team being bigger, faster, and stronger.

The argument is whether there is an increase in probability of injury or not. I don't think its a great reason to not play those teams, but that is what is being discussed. My example is the same exact thing only taken to a more extreme end of the spectrum, but you won't answer it because you know it's true the NAIA team would suffer more injuries if there were a large enough sample pool. Insignificant or not it's increased and it's that simple.

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

 

[Grisly Fan]

Anecdotally, a former player who sat near me at the Oregon claimed that he took a serious beating in the UW game that he really didn't recover from for the rest of the season. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Missoula223]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

 

[grizindabox]

Do you really believe that the top 30 guys on the Griz are so weak and nonathletic when compared to the top 30 guys at Oregon that they should be scared of getting hurt? If so, maybe they shouldn't play. My take, is that the difference is so minor, it is insignificant when it comes to injuries, and a guy has pretty much an identical chance of getting hurt playing down as playing up. As for your example of NAIA vs FBS, dude, that is like unicorns, it is a fairy tale, it doesn't happen.

Never did I say they should be scared of getting hurt, but didn't you see we got beat by 35. That's just a better football team that's not coaching that's one team being bigger, faster, and stronger.

The argument is whether there is an increase in probability of injury or not. I don't think its a great reason to not play those teams, but that is what is being discussed. My example is the same exact thing only taken to a more extreme end of the spectrum, but you won't answer it because you know it's true the NAIA team would suffer more injuries if there were a large enough sample pool. Insignificant or not it's increased and it's that simple.

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

 

[WaGriz4life]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

We lost to Oregon because they have better football players than Montana does. Why do they have better football players? Because they have more scholarships, better facilities, more to offer academically, and almost unlimited money when it comes to recruiting.

They also have more coaches on their staff and pay those coaches 2-20 times more than our coaches. So, they probably have better coaches than we do in some areas. This does not make it more dangerous to play them.

 

[Missoula223]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

We lost to Oregon because they have better football players than Montana does. Why do they have better football players? Because they have more scholarships, better facilities, more to offer academically, and almost unlimited money when it comes to recruiting.

They also have more coaches on their staff and pay those coaches 2-20 times more than our coaches. So, they probably have better coaches than we do in some areas. This does not make it more dangerous to play them.

What are the tangible attributes it takes to be better at football? What do coaches look for when they are recruiting kids?

 

[Missoula223]

Never did I say they should be scared of getting hurt, but didn't you see we got beat by 35. That's just a better football team that's not coaching that's one team being bigger, faster, and stronger.

The argument is whether there is an increase in probability of injury or not. I don't think its a great reason to not play those teams, but that is what is being discussed. My example is the same exact thing only taken to a more extreme end of the spectrum, but you won't answer it because you know it's true the NAIA team would suffer more injuries if there were a large enough sample pool. Insignificant or not it's increased and it's that simple.

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

 

[AZGrizFan]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

Why does any team lose any game? Because the other team had better athletes, better conditioning, better coaching, or better breaks during the game. But none of those inherently lead to more injuries. I mean, using your logic Nevada and Colorado should never play Oregon again, even though all three teams have 85 full scholarship athletes on their rosters.

 

[grizindabox]

So now outscoring a team increases the chance of injury too. My point, if you want to pick extreme examples to attempt to prove a point, great, but the difference between Montana and Oregon is insignificant when it comes to increased chance of injury. I also didn't say to not play them, but if there was/is an increased chance for injury, should they?

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

 

[Missoula223]

No. I never indicated that a score increases the chance of injury, my point implied that the team is bigger, stronger, and faster than the griz, because the griz played well and played hard if you ask any of the coaches. They weren't able to win because they were simply outmatched.

The extreme example represents the trend that an increased differential in those variables causes. I guess "insignificant" can be very subjective, but whether significant or not the fact your using that term specifically says you would agree. Significant could be minor or major.

I have said a few times that I don't think they should play them, but I think injuries is one of the weaker arguments. Finances, home games, and wins are more important to me, and injuries would be an additional argument.

I think spanky is an idiot, and that's the basis of why I dug into this argument.

By insignificant, I mean the increased chance of getting injured. Severity of an injury is an entirely independent variable..unless you are trying to say that playing a FBS school increases the chances of a severe injury, which I would still say is hogwash. As for Oregon being a better team, yes they were, but not because they were bigger or faster or stronger, because I don't believe that to be the case, it was because they are better athletes at football.

Again, as the difference in speed, size, athleticism, and strength increase between 2 teams, so does the likelihood of injury. Would it be good for us to play an NFL team? Why not?

What attributes does it take to be considered a good football player? What do coaches look for in recruiting? Not outliers but what do they generally look for?

Seriously, how big of a gap do you think is between Montana and the Oregon's of the FBS world? And go ahead and keep using the extremes to try and prove your point.

You didn't answer the question.

And I would say that's going to be a subjective, but even slight differences can be a big thing to overcome. If you look at speed for instance if our team averaged hypothetically a 4.8 40 and they averaged a 4.7 I wold say that's a big deal considering how a tenth of a second could be the difference in a team drafting a player or not, for instance.

 

[Missoula223]

No it's simple math analytics. When looking at correlations you look at what occurs when you reach an extreme, in this case, vs 1st graders. But regardless, as differential in size, speed, and strength increase, so does the probability of an injury to that of the lesser of those. It's common sense that in my example, injuries to the first graders would be very probable. As the differential in those variables decrease, so does the likelihood of injury. 5th graders would be less likely to get injured than the 1st graders. High school kids would be less likely to get injured and so on and so forth.

There's no evidence because no one has done an in depth study on the matter, but a lack of experiment doesn't automatically deem it untrue. I could also say there is no evidence to say there is no evidence to your argument because a study of it hasn't been done. That simply doesn't make either of us right, but the logistics of it is what you have to look at.

"You have guys on the Griz squad bigger than players on Oregon. You have guys who are taller. Weigh more. Bench press more weight." These are outliers. And depth is what we are missing? How many of the Griz players would start for Oregon? Very few if any. No matter how deep we were there would be little chance of success because the Oregon players are bigger, stronger, and more athletic as a whole. That's why they are playing there and not here.

"Why do people keep banging this drum with no evidence out there whatsoever that suggests FCS teams are more likely to be injured playing FBS teams?" Again, evidence comes from studies. If you have a study that proves your argument, show me and I would be interested in seeing that I'm wrong. I don't have a study either, but my argument logistically makes sense.

I believe YOU are the one who'd have to produce a study because there's basically zero evidence to the contrary, except in your brain.

Our offensive line was as big as theirs. Our receivers were as big as theirs. Our freshman safety was faster than their P5 running back. Our middle LB was the best LB on the field. Our D performed better against them than Nevada or Colorado, two schools with presumably the same size, speed and strength as Oregon...

Well, that playing college ball and 15 years of college coaching experience with coaches, who all generally feel the same way that I do, even though they don't like to express it to the media, myself included, because dumbass fans will jump all over them. Feel free to question my credibility but don't do it without looking at it from a coaches perspective and do so without diving into the argument.

Why did we lose then? Coaching?

Why does any team lose any game? Because the other team had better athletes, better conditioning, better coaching, or better breaks during the game. But none of those inherently lead to more injuries. I mean, using your logic Nevada and Colorado should never play Oregon again, even though all three teams have 85 full scholarship athletes on their rosters.

When skill levels are the same it can come down to those qualities, I agree, but if you think coaching and conditioning were apart of that lose your insane.

What tangible qualities to coaches recruit? Oregon won that game because they were better football players yes, but what attributes are recruited and what attributes do NFL teams look at when drafting players? Speed, size, strength, and athleticism. That's what won Oregon the game.

 

[grizpsych]

Hey assholes. Here is a dissertation covering the topic you are arguing about. (Note: .pdf link)

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=educ_hess_etds

Oh man. We need to ask for a correction. "The Montana State University Grizzlies"

 

[AZGrizFan]

Why does any team lose any game? Because the other team had better athletes, better conditioning, better coaching, or better breaks during the game. But none of those inherently lead to more injuries. I mean, using your logic Nevada and Colorado should never play Oregon again, even though all three teams have 85 full scholarship athletes on their rosters.

When skill levels are the same it can come down to those qualities, I agree, but if you think coaching and conditioning were apart of that lose your insane.

What tangible qualities to coaches recruit? Oregon won that game because they were better football players yes, but what attributes are recruited and what attributes do NFL teams look at when drafting players? Speed, size, strength, and athleticism. That's what won Oregon the game.

And none of those have been proven to cause higher or more severe injuries. Because if they did, Nevada and Colorado would fold up their tend and move back to FCS, because apparently they hve FCS-level speed, size, strength and athleticism in their athletes based on their performance on the field.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Hey assholes. Here is a dissertation covering the topic you are arguing about. (Note: .pdf link)

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=educ_hess_etds

Oh man. We need to ask for a correction. "The Montana State University Grizzlies"

Yep. A big fat nothing-burger. Lots of "fear", losts of statements uttered as fact, but zero data to back it up.

 

[grizpsych]

Hey assholes. Here is a dissertation covering the topic you are arguing about. (Note: .pdf link)

https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=educ_hess_etds

Oh man. We need to ask for a correction. "The Montana State University Grizzlies"

Yep. A big fat nothing-burger. Lots of "fear", losts of statements uttered as fact, but zero data to back it up.

Looks that way.