|
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: AI Again?
|
Author:
Bengal
[Edit]
|
Date Posted: 22:54:02 04/07/08 Mon
WARNING: Those uninterested in the AI discussion should read no further. Trust me.
I would not rejoin this because there is nothing new here -- but for one set of comments -- and I have nothing new myself to add on the merits that I or others have not already said.
The new stuff, however, includes your assertion that your view that the AI differential had de minimis impact on Ivy football results is supported by "the overwhelming weight of the evidence measured by the results" back to 1956. Of course, with respect, this is quite untrue. Nor is your suggestion that your position represents the "actual" and my argument in the other threads is merely "theoretical" accurate.(Incidentally, among other things, AI differences are not only "actual", you have said they have provided a huge advantage, albeit claiming de minimis impact on the field) And, the suggestion that the argument contrary to yours amounts to "well it has to have had an impact" ignores several posts setting forth the basis for a view different from yours.
Since the inception of the AI and the later inception of banding, down to the early 2000s, do you know which football players the lowest AI schools had access to that the highest ones did not? Without this information, respectfully, your "overwhelming" evidence is nothing of the sort. This is, in part, because you are not controlling for a key variable, the differential recruitment pools created by the AI.
All that your League results/timeline discussion shows is that the AI is not the sole determinant of League standings -- which has never been my argument anyway. It does not show that the AI has never had an impact on results.
With respect, your argument is results-oriented, explaining results almost solely by your evaluation of coaching and framing the discussion at its outset to exclude the possibility, other than theoretically, that AI-created differences in recruitment pools could have changed the outcome of even one Ivy League game, apparently,in a 15 year period. So it is that Bagnoli is deemed a great coach, therefore when he wins the AI had, as a practical matter, nothing to do with it, same with Estes. But when their superior coaching does not result in a good W-L record or a title, its because Harvard outrecruits everyone else or Murphy is a good coach too or both. Or, when Yale wins now, its because Seidlicki is better than the aged, decrepit version of the later Cozza. And so on. It seems that whatever explains results, an admissions advantage simply cannot be one of them. Yale slumped because Cozza went downhill (incidentally, as you know, he faced some excellent coaches in his glory years as well).
When he does share a cotitle in 1989, it proves he can overcome admissions disadvantages so winning the title must be explained as ... what? A one-year return to greatness followed by his return to being over the hill? The notion that Yale might not have slumped, at least as much as it did, under a level AI in the League remains just a theory even though he and one other head coach publicly pointed to the AI has having a real impact.
My argument is not that the AI determines all; not that lower AI schools will always win the League or outrank every higher AI shcool or that a higher AI school cannot win the League. And I have acknowledged the importance of coaching and credited you for stressing it.
My argument is that, at least at its inception and some years thereafter, AI differentials, by creating a wider recruitment pool for some, had an impact on team performance at the margins over time. At some point over a period of years, a lower AI school with the kind of advantage you had described is going to win some games it would otherwise not win but for the AI differential.
My argument is very difficult to measure and involves subjectivity and is not "proven" -- any more than your claims are proven that the AI had only de minimis impact based on your timeline or that coaching is close to being a sole determinant. Key information is missing for either of us to be conclusive or to speak of overwhelming evidence.
Indeed, all of the variables that go to W-L records, including coaching talent, are difficult to measure. Nonetheless, the difficulty of measurement does not mean that any of these factors, including the AI or coaching talent, had no real impact on results over time.
As said elsewhere, even in a year when a Harvard goes 5-2 or 6-1, it does not mean the AI had no adverse impact on Harvard. If the AI had been the same for all, it might have won one (or two) more games. Not in every year, but at some point over time.
You are correct, I think, that there is a logic to the argument I have made. It does reflect a kind of "common sense" and it does seem very unrealistic to think that, say, over 15 years, the differential AIs in the League never changed the result in one Ivy game, especially when it is acknowledged that at one time, the AI differences provided a huge advantage for some. But, while this may be a starting point, it is not what I primarily base this discussion on.
--I don't mention the academics of individual students as a rule, and won't do so here, but I have been told of players reachable by some schools and not others who I believe made a difference (None of these discussins have been within the last four years or so). Incidentally, some AI ranges and individual cases were mentioned in the 1995 SI article.
--The remarks of Tosches about a level playing field in that article. He did have some success, but again, that does not disprove that AI differentials have an impact. His "testimony" is based on actual recruitment efforts, not on a timeline.
--The remarks of Cozza in True Blue, where he said there were hundreds of players recruitable by some Ivies and not others. Call him what you will, unlike either of us, he too was engaged in the specifics of recruiting first hand, for years.
-- I've had too many conversations, up until a few years ago, with coaches who, while sometimes mentioning an example and sometimes not, assert that the AI made a difference on the field.
Two head coaches in HYP, in 2003, told me that under a level AI H or Y or P would win the title annually. Assistant coaches at a couple of non-HYP schools told me that their on-field results were positively impacted by their comparative AI situation. A few did not think they could compete well without it.
These kinds of anecdotal evidence, even without names attached, don't "prove" the point, and not every remark needs to be taken at face value, but taken togethe, is much persuasive, in my view, than a timeline which is consistent with my argument in the first place.
--Bagnoli's own statement that financial aid disparities are deeply troublesome because it could put even just one, two, or three difference makers out of reach of some of the schools, upsetting the League balance. He did not name names either. But over the life of the AI, during a given 4 year period, why would AI differentials over more than one band never yield difference makers on the field -- or over 15 years? They don't have to all be A plus players either to make such a difference (the fact that financial aid disparities may be even more problemattic than he suggested is irrelevant to the point that having even a few players available to some schools and not others can be significant).
--This I don't have at my fingertips so my recollection may be off, but even recent comments from Penn, Bilsky (Interview)and football literature hint that a tightening of standards (the AI has been contracting) make past success more difficult to duplicate in football.
-- Why is it that difference makers can show up in the transfer market and put a school which does not take them at a disadvantage, but differnce makers cannot show up in the AI gaps between schools (our discussion of transfers, earlier)? The fact that they do not have names we can cite does not mean they do not exist. Call it theoretical, but how realistic is it, given recruiting under the AI, to claim there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
We have a difference of opinion. Taken together, the items I mentioned persuade me my view, while not susceptible to conclusive proof until we have a lot more names and cases, is the better one, but there is certainly not overwhelming evidence to the contrary, indeed there is little evidence to the contrary; the "testimony" of coaches on the record, and for me, the remarks of others off the record, the remarks of Bagnoli from which you can extrapolate from-- are not theoretical; and this isn't based on "it must be so." Cheers and regards.
|
|
