I was wondering when Corso was going to go completely senile and start muttering inappropriate things on TV.
I'm just glad there WASN'T a delay:
Of course, this nearly blew up the internet to smithereens. Robert Flores may have said it best:
Lee Corso doing his best to blow up twitter. It's as if Tim Tebow won the Super Bowl. Throwing to Terrell Owens. W a Brett Favre jersey
Lee Corso read a scripted apology after a commercial break during the Michigan/Nebraska game. No need to apologize, Lee - that was awesome.
**Update - Here's video of said scripted apology...
(Thanks to everyone who sent the tip. Video via SB Nation)
Perhaps some of you would have a better time reading this blog instead of AA...thanks for reading nonetheless.
@bburg@jason9289 The point of the post is to observe a flaw in ESPN's statistic that they hyped as one that would revolutionize the way we view quarterbacks. Last I checked, the guy who invented the original QB rating hasn't held his nationally televised special yet. We're fair with every network and will call out or applaud when it's appropriate, not just slurp up what we're fed by networks.
@anonjohn45 The fact that it's a rate statistic enables ESPN to rank Week 5 QBs (which you can do on the QBR page) and say definitively, "Tim Tebow had a better game than Aaron Rodgers." Ludicrous. Anyone who watched the two games knows this is insanity. But, if you want to reduce this conversation to calling people "retards," I suppose it's your right to do so.
@myoder84 @bburg @jason9289 @anonjohn45 actually, since it is a rate statistic, it says "Tim Tebow was better than Aaron Rodgers based on the amount of time they each played." Check out the definition of rate, please. Also, I don't remember anybody saying this was a final and definititive measurement, as you suggest. It is TOTAL QBR, which includes the QB's ability to run. Tebow ran for 38 yards and a TD, too. If he had 38 more yards passing and one more TD pass, his NFL passer rating would have been higher than Rodgers as well. It is a good, measurable stat. And while some people would rightly say that Rodgers had a better GAME, than Tebow - ESPN's conttention is that while they were in their respective games, Tebow's total rating was better (and by 1.1 pct, by the way - which is hardly a difference worth arguing).
wah, wah, wah. ESPN is bad. Everybody else is good. They developed a stat (probably took a year at least) and on one Sunday, a guy plays for half a game and his stat is higher than another guy. This is a crime against humanity. Nevermind that if a RB throws a TD on an option play his passer rating is practically perfect, and if a QB goes for 320 yards, 3 TD and 1 INT his passer rating won't be as good as the RB. But ESPN didn't come up with passer rating, so we won't complain about that.
Rodgers was behind by 14 points in the second half so not sure the Tebow getting credit for plays in the clutch is a valid explanation.
by the way, sample sizes are already skewed by many factors over the course of football game (e.g score,playcalling)
Perhaps Tebow's QBR should be in the single digits because he couldn't gain 3 yards to tie the game.
Should we get rid of the batting average to? players hit 400 all the time for a week. Does that mean that they are ted williams? No. The QBR is a ratio stat, meaning that to be accurate you need a large sample, not 1 quarter. Let it play out over a couple weeks then the numbers will be fine.
Ryan we get it. You're not a fan of a lot that ESPN does. You wish somebody else ran a network to compete with them. It's starting to border on the Apple vs Android fanboyism.