Today is the very first day I’ve read you saying you were wrong about anything. I can only imagine what that actually posts read like. I have no idea what I was previously wrong about and apologized for.
You don’t perform regression analysis to correlate some things. You perform regression analysis hoping to find correlations. You not knowing the difference is telling. Based on lots of previous experience…I’m imagining there’d be an extremely weak correlation as there’s a large number of factors that go into winning….anywhere. I‘m sure you wouldn’t know what a weak or strong correlation read like.
I've said in at least 3 and possibly more posts that you should be less butthurt about Weber because I was absolutely wrong about Mike Thomas and if you are going to make a lot of arguments, then you ought to prepare to be wrong some of the time. This is exceptionally silly, I've now wasted my time looking up and quoting posts from the last few months.
"I will take my lumps for Mike Thomas. He was a total bum. I liked the Whitman hire more than is warranted thus far too, and those two are very different. Whitman seems to lack focus on the reality that winning in sports should be his #1 goal, because it solves many other problems for his department." 2-14-24
"Also Josh Whitman is 33-59 as AD presiding over football. It seems more likely than not he doesn't have much of a clue about the type of coach to hire, but I just go with records. Mike Thomas was 24-35 btw, and I think Thomas failed." 2-20-24
"NEO ... the position you are taking here is what occurs when you tether yourself to a shitty argument and won't let go. It's why you are still out there defending Bruce in the Groce thread while I'm going to say: 'yep, Mike Thomas really sucked hard, I was wrong on that one.' It's called taking the L and moving on." 2-13-24
At least two of those three were direct responses to you btw. Note all of this came after the Shannon situation, before which you weren't obsessed with me. Weird how that played out ... lol.
As for the correlation, it might be low, I'd bet heavily against that. I'd certainly like to see the data points graphed and a regression analysis applied. I think there's a pretty high correlation between wins at high majors and NFL players on the roster, largely because I've been looking at this issue for 20 years (and you clearly haven't) and comparing Illinois to various other high majors. I remain amazed how much more NFL talent we've produced than lots of bottom half P5 programs who have seen far more success over this span. But again, you haven't probably spent 5 seconds thinking about this until your egotistical mind determined that I could not possibly be making a sensible point (presumably because you don't think coaching has been the big problem for Illini football, and I clearly do).
My favorite part of this post is that the evidence literally disproves your entire argument, and better yet I bleeping volunteered being wrong about it, partly in an effort to get you to calm down (which I suppose was an exercise in utter futility).