FSN: Mankato West QB Nelson goes against family tradition

Donate To GopherHole
So basically you’re now saying that you’re not here to talk about facts. Just to talk about assumptions.
Correction is for fact. Pointing out is for opinion (view). You can point out opinion or view but you cannot correct them. Because the view/ or opinion is neither right nor wrong.
Let’s say 1+1=2 is fact in basic mathematic. So, if someone says 1+1=3, then you can correct that. Why? It is a fact. 1+1=2 is not an opinion or view.
Majority Opinion from Supreme Court opinion is not about what is right or what is wrong. It is essentially opinion of majority. Opinion in Latin Opinari means suppose. You should be saying you’re just here to point out an (in my opinion) incorrect view.
Fact vs. Opinion
Reality vs. Perception
Opinion, perception, point of view must be based on fact or at least something to base on. If you’re here to establish the fact, then you can say correctness. People are not also capable of correcting an incorrect view. Thus being said, you can only assume or suppose that you’re capable of correcting an incorrect view or opinion.
If irrelevancy has its place near the bottom, trying to correct something which is neither right nor wrong will get you nowhere.
 

Prado89 said:
So basically you’re now saying that you’re not here to talk about facts. Just to talk about assumptions.
Correction is for fact. Pointing out is for opinion (view). You can point out opinion or view but you cannot correct them. Because the view/ or opinion is neither right nor wrong.
Let’s say 1+1=2 is fact in basic mathematic. So, if someone says 1+1=3, then you can correct that. Why? It is a fact. 1+1=2 is not an opinion or view.
Majority Opinion from Supreme Court opinion is not about what is right or what is wrong. It is essentially opinion of majority. Opinion in Latin Opinari means suppose. You should be saying you’re just here to point out an (in my opinion) incorrect view.
Fact vs. Opinion
Reality vs. Perception
Opinion, perception, point of view must be based on fact or at least something to base on. If you’re here to establish the fact, then you can say correctness. People are not also capable of correcting an incorrect view. Thus being said, you can only assume or suppose that you’re capable of correcting an incorrect view or opinion.
If irrelevancy has its place near the bottom, trying to correct something which is neither right nor wrong will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...

Correct was the wrong word to use in that situation, but my point stands. There is a reason Bart Houston is rated as the #6 QB by rivals, the #4 QB by Scout and the #7 QB by 247sports. Those are facts.

You are clearly insecure, which is why you are hiding behind technicalities when you actually undertsand my point.

You also never actually addressed any of the assessments I made about your posts, including the irrelevancy of the two quotes of mine you used together. Interesting. Glad to see most Gopher fans are not like you. That would be very sad.

Furthermore, I used facts to back up my opinion. So to say I'm here to "just talk about assumptions" is wrong. The original post about Bart Houston was misleading, I used facts to explain why he is still considered a top 10 QB recruit nationally (an opinion, shared by many). I also used facts to prove that our staff had him ranked higher than Phillip Nelson.

Is there anything I'm missing? Do you have any actual thoughts on the several football-related topics or are you going to just keep looking for debatable word choice in my posts?
 

When Mr. A start to name Mr. B with negative terms such as insecure, it means Mr. A is psychologically defeated. For this moment I’ll enjoy my lunch. :cool
 


Badger2010 said:
Late lunch...enjoy! mmmm 5-0. :eek:
Click to expand...

Well at least you got the number of your own championships right, you forgot one of the Gophers' though.
 



A kid goes to high school in madison. He attends the U of M to hopefully get into the Carlson School of Management. He is accepted and has the best four years of his life. He returns to madison to work for a fortune 500 company (?). He gets on a local sconnie site and talks like he knows everything about a BADger QB recruit from Minnesota although he is a Gopher fan. He can't understand why people question his posts. HMMMM.
 

Badger2010 said:
Correct was the wrong word to use in that situation, but my point stands. There is a reason Bart Houston is rated as the #6 QB by rivals, the #4 QB by Scout and the #7 QB by 247sports. Those are facts.
Click to expand...

Technically it is a fact that those institutions rated Houston as you say, but really, those are just the opinions of those institutions based on facts such as height, weight, 40 time, offer list, etc. Ratings are not facts. If they were, there wouldn't be disagreement between rivals, scout and 247.
 

tap said:
A kid goes to high school in madison. He attends the U of M to hopefully get into the Carlson School of Management. He is accepted and has the best four years of his life. He returns to madison to work for a fortune 500 company (?). He gets on a local sconnie site and talks like he knows everything about a BADger QB recruit from Minnesota although he is a Gopher fan. He can't understand why people question his posts. HMMMM.
Click to expand...

The only things I said about Phillip Nelson, the Gopher commit at QB, is that he was your top target, he was never offered by Wisconsin (although he might have been had he camped), and that he is a very good player.

Bart Houston is a Wisconsin commit at QB. He is the player I've talked most about.
 



FreakyDeke said:
Technically it is a fact that those institutions rated Houston as you say, but really, those are just the opinions of those institutions based on facts such as height, weight, 40 time, offer list, etc. Ratings are not facts. If they were, there wouldn't be disagreement between rivals, scout and 247.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with everything you said. One added point I would make is that height, weight, 40 time, offer list, etc on recruiting sites are more often than not incorrect; this is especially true when it comes to measurables. Offer lists, if the kid does interviews and is truthful, are usually fairly accurate.
 

Badger2010 said:
I agree 100% with everything you said. One added point I would make is that height, weight, 40 time, offer list, etc on recruiting sites are more often than not incorrect; this is especially true when it comes to measurables. Offer lists, if the kid does interviews and is truthful, are usually fairly accurate.
Click to expand...

This is just semantics, but inaccurate stats are not opinions. They are just questions of fact that might be incorrect.

Generally, talking about anything in recruiting has a little smoke and mirrors to it. 40 times aren't accurate, height and weight is often not accurate, offer lists can be inaccurate or not at all telling (certain kids want to go certain places and their offer sheets don't reflect their caliber (Tommy Olson, Phil Nelson, Nick Toon, etc.)). Generally, you just take it all with a grain of salt and hope your coach is good at evaluating talent. Three years from now, none of us will care about the marginal debate whether Bart Houston was the Badger's #1 or whether it was someone else. If Phil Nelson is terrible, I won't care whether or not the Badgers might have offered.

If I am a Wisconsin fan, I feel pretty good about recruiting because they've had a track record of having good players (scouting and developing). If I am a MN fan, I am a bit more cautiously optimistic. I like Kill's recruits so far, but his sample size is awfully small here.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
This is just semantics, but inaccurate stats are not opinions. They are just questions of fact that might be incorrect.

Generally, talking about anything in recruiting has a little smoke and mirrors to it. 40 times aren't accurate, height and weight is often not accurate, offer lists can be inaccurate or not at all telling (certain kids want to go certain places and their offer sheets don't reflect their caliber (Tommy Olson, Phil Nelson, Nick Toon, etc.)). Generally, you just take it all with a grain of salt and hope your coach is good at evaluating talent. Three years from now, none of us will care about the marginal debate whether Bart Houston was the Badger's #1 or whether it was someone else. If Phil Nelson is terrible, I won't care whether or not the Badgers might have offered.

If I am a Wisconsin fan, I feel pretty good about recruiting because they've had a track record of having good players (scouting and developing). If I am a MN fan, I am a bit more cautiously optimistic. I like Kill's recruits so far, but his sample size is awfully small here.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Not sure who/what you are referring to with the "inaccurate stats are not opinions" statement, but I agree with you. I think maybe what freakydeke was trying to say is that the opinions (player rankings) were based on stats/facts. I said those stats, which opinions are sometimes based on, are often inaccurate.

Either way, I agree with you.
 

I guess this thead got off a little bit :)... that being said. I'm glad Minnesota got Nelson and I truly hope he becomes a solid if not very good B10 QB. I've said this for several years it helps Wisconsin if Minnesota gets back to respectability. There is no rivalry right now from a Wisconsin perspective because the "U" has been terrible.

Why has the Iowa / Wisconsin rivalry been arguably the B10's 2nd best the last decade... because both teams have been good and usually play for something. Wisconsin no longer plays Iowa every year, so that rivaly will naturally fade a little. Hence, an improved Minnesota program that is competitive in it's division and league will be good for both schools.

I never have and never will believe that both programs can't be good at the same time. My dream is to see Minnesota and Wisconsin play in the B10 championship game someday so in a way I'm rooting for Minnesota. Call me crazy.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom