Recruiting Football Talk VII

#151,626
#151,626
rikberry31 said:
I have coached both baseball and football for years and love both dearly. I have witnessed first hand the dying of baseball. In football you can take an athlete with no experience and find somewhere to plug them in and they can have success. You can watch football and be entertained with little or no understanding of the game (there are many object lessons on VN that will attest to that fact). That is not true of baseball.
I can't tell you how many times, in baseball, a player who hasn't played for a while comes out and they look foolish. Unless the competition is very low, but they ain't gonna cut it on a state caliber or highly competitive team, there is too much to know. There is nowhere to hide in baseball, everyone comes to bat. Experience and knowledge of the game is massively important.
I submit Michael Jordan as exhibit #1. One of the greatest athletes to ever walk the planet and arguably the best basketball player of all time (morans please don't go there). He sucked in his foray into professional baseball. I mean as an old man I could have hit better than him in AA.
Baseball can make athletes look like idiots
Click to expand...
Arguably the best basketball player of all time???? You been hangin' out with @TrippieRedd at the potholes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaagerVol
#151,627
#151,627
jave36 said:
Intelligence is not what makes a great hitter. There are a lot of DUMB baseball players who can hit. It's just experience. You put in the reps and have the athleticism, you end up being good at it. Jordan would have been an MLB hall of famer if he'd been putting in the reps for baseball since he was 5 instead of using all his reps on basketball.

And no, at any decent level, you cannot put in a random athlete for football and expect them to be good. There's a LOT more knowledge needed to be good at football than baseball. Schemes and positions and assignments and plays and knowing what your teammates are doing simultaneously and reacting to all those variables from the defense as well.

You're pumping up baseball to be much more than it is. It requires more time and more reps to dial in hitting than some specific skills in other sports, sure, but beyond pitch selection it's not all that complicated or complex, and there's sooo much time for the manager to handle most of the complexity (shifts, pitch selection, etc...) that players don't really need to be all that smart.
Click to expand...
Agreed with this. To say baseball is an exception of the ability to put an athlete in the contest with no experience and they look stupid is just wrong.

Put someone on the field with professional soccer players and they may never touch the ball in 90 minutes. Olympic wrestling? Wouldn't last a minute with those guys. Water polo?

They're at the highest level of sports and without those reps everyone will look stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, Scvol7906 and 7 others
#151,629
#151,629
SoilVol said:
I would challenge the assertion that the average person 100 years ago would be a "genius" today. Firstly, you have no sources to back that up. Secondly, it's false.

Let me introduce to you the "Flynn Effect."

James Flynn invented the standardized IQ tests 100 years ago. Researchers have been testing people all over the world since. What they've documented is that every generation worldwide has scored higher on average than the generation before it. Today's average person would be considered a genius 100 years ago... literally. The worldwide IQ is more than 30 points higher today, on average, than it was in 1920.

The caveat is that since 1975, the developed world (US, Europe, and some Asian countries) has slowed down, and recently some countries have declined slightly in average IQ. Norway started leveling off in the late 60s with ups and downs from year to year. American tests dropped for this first time around 2005, but only a fraction of a point. But still LEAGUES above 100 years ago. Meanwhile, developing countries' IQs are still climbing at a rapid rate today due to technological advancements, improved nutrition, better educational opportunities etc.

People interest or disinterest in baseball has nothing to do with intelligence. You could argue it has to do with attention span, something that is getting shorter on average for Americans due to modern technology and social media. Or you could also argue it's because the horrible umping, unwritten "rules," and crusade against anything fun among other things. You could say the game isn't evolving with the interests and entertainment preferences of modern America at a rapid enough pace. Still wildly popular, so I don't see it getting to the point of NASCAR, but something has to change.
Click to expand...
You realize I.Q. tests are normed to the population taking the test at the time and to some extent they are valid over a period of years. Comparing I.Q. scores from a hundred years ago to today's is probably more art than science, and not really reliable. A 36 on the ACT is not the same as a 36 30 years ago.
Facts on the ground are that the math skill requirements to graduate the eighth grade of a 100 years ago wouldn't be met by most of the high school graduates today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, Scvol7906 and 3 others
#151,630
#151,630
PlanetVolunteer said:
Baseball lost out to football and basketball because it's simply not as entertaining.

I dont see how baseball is all that complex either? It's slow moving, doesn't display near the athleticism of the other too, isn't as complex as football and is on par with basketball for complexity.

You can leave a baseball game for an hour and the score stays the same. Has nothing to do with people being less educated. It's been surpassed for good reason.
Click to expand...
It’s been surpassed solely because of entertainment. It’s definitely a complex game and much more complex than basketball
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and rikberry31
#151,634
#151,634
Enki_Amenra said:
That's one reason football is so popular. . .you have a position for the fatties and bean poles to play and be successful.

It blows my mind that players can practice and condition themselves at the level they do and still have a tire around their waist. They must eat truckloads to stay that size. . . but, I also ate truckloads and could never again a lb over about 180. . . which is my point, I guess. There is a spot on the field for all body types
Click to expand...
We prefer to be called big boned, not "fatties". Husky is also acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX, Hoghater, Scvol7906 and 5 others
#151,643
#151,643
mrMet said:
It’s been surpassed solely because of entertainment. It’s definitely a complex game and much more complex than basketball
Click to expand...
But almost all of the complexity is handled by the manager putting his chess pieces into position. The complexity of basketball and football and the mental processing speed required by players is much higher than baseball.

I'll agree the managers in baseball are freaking geniuses, but the most people don't get entertainment out of managers playing chess anymore than watching chess players playing chess. Watching a qb or a point guard analyze the defense, find its weak points, and have all the other players execute to attack the weak point all in a few seconds is far more mentally impressive and entertaining than watching a pitcher throw a change up on a 3-2 count while the other 8 players don't even move because a manager gave him the signal to throw it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scvol7906, SweetasSoda, SoilVol and 1 other person
#151,644
#151,644
I do think they should broadcast more intramural stuff. If you want games to matter, toss in some try-hards with a round of beers on the line. Have AFLAC sponsor the coverage. 20% chance someone is going to the minute clinic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
#151,646
#151,646
rikberry31 said:
You realize I.Q. tests are normed to the population taking the test at the time and to some extent they are valid over a period of years. Comparing I.Q. scores from a hundred years ago to today's is probably more art than science, and not really reliable. A 36 on the ACT is not the same as a 36 30 years ago.
Facts on the ground are that the math skill requirements to graduate the eighth grade of a 100 years ago wouldn't be met by most of the high school graduates today.
Click to expand...
That's not remotely true. ACT isn't an IQ test, so you can't use the change in ACT test difficulty to say IQ tests have changed in difficulty. The IQ test scale is the same.

Also, I assume by "a 36 today isnt the same as a 36 30 years ago" you mean because we have an increase in perfect scores in the last 10 years. Yes, because the population has increased and there's more resources available to students for test tutoring (its a huge business) and practicing. If they're normalizing the ditribution to the population like you say, then the same proportion of people are scoring perfect scores as it was 30 years ago. Theres just more people taking the test because 1. Theres more people and 2. There's more people going to college than 30 years ago.

ACT scores have actually also been following the same trend as IQ tests. The mean score increased to a peak in 2007 and has declined gradually since. Yet, the millenial and Z scores are still above the mean of 30 years ago. Regardless, ACT isn't an IQ test. It's a college-readiness test to see how prepared you are.

You are also making a massive error in comparing the 1920s and 2020s. Let's say for arguments sakes the average high schooler today couldn't get a 70% on a 1920s eight grade math test. Lets play that game. You've made a huge error if you then assume that the average 8th grader in 1920 is more intelligent than the average 2020's high schooler.

Because the average 8th grader in 1920 wasn't even in school. Today, everyone has to go until they're 16. Most stay at least until 18. Back then very few (not to mention when the Depression started) were going to school. Public schooling hadn't even begun. Only the wealthy and highly intelligent were getting an education in 8th grade. The average 8th grader hadn't been in a classroom for a few years at that point.

Its the same mistake people male today arguing that India's children are more intelligent than America's. Because India's students are doing higher level schooling at a younger age than ours are. The problem is that the vast majority of India's youth arent in school or get kicked out for poor scores or behavior. So the average income and education level in India is below ours. 1920s education was like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scvol7906, drvenner, Devo182 and 3 others
#151,647
#151,647
jave36 said:
But almost all of the complexity is handled by the manager putting his chess pieces into position. The complexity of basketball and football and the mental processing speed required by players is much higher than baseball.

I'll agree the managers in baseball are freaking geniuses, but the most people don't get entertainment out of managers playing chess anymore than watching chess players playing chess. Watching a qb or a point guard analyze the defense, find its weak points, and have all the other players execute to attack the weak point all in a few seconds is far more mentally impressive and entertaining than watching a pitcher throw a change up on a 3-2 count while the other 8 players don't even move because a manager gave him the signal to throw it.
Click to expand...
Coaches call plays in the other sports. Football doesn’t factor in here imo. It’s between the other two. You’re also not considering the technique and complexity that comes into hitting a baseball, fielding and throwing. The learning and complexity of running bases

As someone that played both until college, baseball > basketball in terms of complexity top to bottom imo
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsDoc81TX and 85SugarVol
#151,649
#151,649
SoilVol said:
That's not remotely true. ACT isn't an IQ test, so you can't use the change in ACT test difficulty to say IQ tests have changed in difficulty. The IQ test scale is the same.

Also, I assume by "a 36 today isnt the same as a 36 30 years ago" you mean because we have an increase in perfect scores in the last 10 years. Yes, because the population has increased and there's more resources available to students for test tutoring (its a huge business) and practicing. If they're normalizing the ditribution to the population like you say, then the same proportion of people are scoring perfect scores as it was 30 years ago. Theres just more people taking the test because 1. Theres more people and 2. There's more people going to college than 30 years ago.

ACT scores have actually also been following the same trend as IQ tests. The mean score increased to a peak in 2007 and has declined gradually since. Yet, the millenial and Z scores are still above the mean of 30 years ago. Regardless, ACT isn't an IQ test. It's a college-readiness test to see how prepared you are.

You are also making a massive error in comparing the 1920s and 2020s. Let's say for arguments sakes the average high schooler today couldn't get a 70% on a 1920s eight grade math test. Lets play that game. You've made a huge error if you then assume that the average 8th grader in 1920 is more intelligent than the average 2020's high schooler.

Because the average 8th grader in 1920 wasn't even in school. Today, everyone has to go until they're 16. Most stay at least until 18. Back then very few (not to mention when the Depression started) were going to school. Public schooling hadn't even begun. Only the wealthy and highly intelligent were getting an education in 8th grade. The average 8th grader hadn't been in a classroom for a few years at that point.

Its the same mistake people male today arguing that India's children are more intelligent than America's. Because India's students are doing higher level schooling at a younger age than ours are. The problem is that the vast majority of India's youth arent in school or get kicked out for poor scores or behavior. So the average income and education level in India is below ours. 1920s education was like that.
Click to expand...
Teachers teach to the ACT curriculum, same as to the State boards. Student success is school's success. Merit increases are directly correlated to these figures. Same for a schools budget.

Not every child learns in this capacity. I argue IQ is an abstract construct. The trades man is differently intelligent than the classical musician, than is the Landscape designer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, VolsDoc81TX, Scvol7906 and 5 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top