Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
omg omg omg 134 omg omg omg 134

07-19-2012 , 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elrey
guys were off topic. lets get this back to insulting wittys intelligence and mental status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elrey
he tries. im glad he does, the socialization probably makes his therapist happy.
(clap)
07-19-2012 , 05:47 PM
once the dickin is out of the way, what else is left to do?

Last edited by Rolando Blackman; 07-19-2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: other than crying
07-19-2012 , 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolando Blackman
Australian hurdler Michelle Jenneke
It's about that time... :excite:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolando Blackman
NBA has gotta have the least parity but im to lazy to support it
I guess it depends on what the criteria is. Are we talking championships? Playoff appearances? Playoff wins? Losing records? Division wins? Etc.

NBA champions I would think would have the least parity oat at t. There's only like 3 franchises that have ever won a championship. NFL I would think is not too far behind... out of the last 10 or 15 super bowls (20 or 30 teams), I would bet there are only 8-10 franchises. That's less than a third of the league.

I find it a lot easier to argue my points when I don't bother verifying their accuracy. Women figured this **** out long ago. I feel dumb
07-19-2012 , 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolando Blackman
once the dickin is out of the way, what else is left to do?
apologize a lot
07-19-2012 , 05:48 PM
I'd think a real easy measurement would be to what degree a teams previous seasons win totals correlate with their current win totals (autocorrelation), and it would be a really easy thing to plug into a program like SAS. It doesn't look like anyone's bothered before afaict.
07-19-2012 , 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil0pp
(clap)
twss?
07-19-2012 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryPanda
It's about that time... :excite:


I guess it depends on what the criteria is. Are we talking championships? Playoff appearances? Playoff wins? Losing records? Division wins? Etc.

NBA champions I would think would have the least parity oat at t. There's only like 3 franchises that have ever won a championship. NFL I would think is not too far behind... out of the last 10 or 15 super bowls (20 or 30 teams), I would bet there are only 8-10 franchises. That's less than a third of the league.

I find it a lot easier to argue my points when I don't bother verifying their accuracy. Women figured this **** out long ago. I feel dumb
youre good at fake statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by nham
apologize a lot
07-19-2012 , 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolando Blackman
did the divisions have fake lines before?
well for one teams changed divisions and two there used to be 3 wild card spots and 3 divison winners and now its 4 division winners and 2 wild cards spots so its not the same to compare pre 2000 to nao and 3 there are also less teams per division
07-19-2012 , 05:50 PM
If there's high autocorrelation it would indicate a lack of parity and vice versa.
07-19-2012 , 05:51 PM
well i have to go to work i hate working nights
07-19-2012 , 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredd-bird
To each their own, but that doesn't sound like a fun date to me.
It's good conversation. Lately my first dates have typically lasted at least 6 hours. No kissing or sexing involved either

Last edited by jellykingturbo2000; 07-19-2012 at 05:52 PM. Reason: i'm on my best behavior if i'm not connecting the person
07-19-2012 , 05:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by allinontheturn
I'd think a real easy measurement would be to what degree a teams previous seasons win totals correlate with their current win totals (autocorrelation), and it would be a really easy thing to plug into a program like SAS. It doesn't look like anyone's bothered before afaict.
don't talk about it be about it
07-19-2012 , 05:52 PM
07-19-2012 , 05:53 PM
The low parity is more a testament to how well the top nfl organizations are run. You pretty much have to have higher parity when ur players have 25% the avg career length.

Greg was right let's talk about something else
07-19-2012 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellykingturbo2000
It's good conversation. Lately my first dates have typically lasted at least 6 hours. No kissing or sexing involved either
So much fail in here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Insert Witty SN-
don't talk about it be about it
I'm unmotivate ... would be a lot easier to actually find some study that's already been done
07-19-2012 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil0pp
The low parity is more a testament to how well the top nfl organizations are run. You pretty much have to have higher parity when ur players have 25% the avg career length.

Greg was right let's talk about something else
**** you, you don't get the last word.
07-19-2012 , 05:56 PM
I'm always right tho
07-19-2012 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by allinontheturn
So much fail in here.
I completely concur.
07-19-2012 , 05:57 PM
a first date that lasts 6 hours sounds completely terrible
07-19-2012 , 05:59 PM
Mine last about ~13 minutes
07-19-2012 , 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxBK
a first date that lasts 6 hours sounds completely terrible
30 minutes in the meet and greet phase, 5 hours of ****in, 30 minutes explaining why she cant sleep over

sounds good to me
07-19-2012 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phil0pp
Mine last about ~1.3 minutes
.
07-19-2012 , 06:02 PM
yeah, you wish
07-19-2012 , 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoSoxBK
a first date that lasts 6 hours sounds completely terrible
It's like 3 dates combined into one, more like an adventure. Usually involves about 3 different location

Last edited by jellykingturbo2000; 07-19-2012 at 06:05 PM. Reason: i'm usually invited to sleep over if i want, but i decline
07-19-2012 , 06:05 PM
lol i'm ******ed

      
m