Now you are choosing a subset of the data to create a convenient argument which defends Kill.
My point encompassed ALL games that Fleck and Kill had coached to try and draw the best comparison.
Most responders who refute my data have been trying to argue on subsets of the data which no doubt favor Kill over Fleck, while at the same time ignore that data that has Fleck over Kill.
If you want to argue Kill or Fleck, there is countless subsets of data you can choose from to make that point, but it's less comprehensive of what I posted.
Someone who wants to defend Fleck over Kill could also choose smaller sets of data to make the argument look better for Fleck than his advantage he currently shows.
(Adjusted for the higher scoring football across the NCAA today would be the first option which would look much worse for Kill).
My data does not say this is a good defense, but the data does show it's not worse than Kill as a whole which is opposite of what we've read this week.
Your argument is that for some of the worst games it is worse which for some of the games it is worse. But in it's entirety they are very similar with a current edge to Fleck.
