Grades - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Grades (/thread-11321.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Grades (/thread-11321.html)
Grades - BostonCard - 01-06-2016
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/97078/2015-pac-12-season-grades-stanford-carudinal
Not surprisingly, we pretty much aced our season. The defense merits a B-, which is reasonable. It played well-enough for most of the year, but didn't excel until the end. But nice to see the D with its best games at the end.
BC
Re: Grades - CTcard - 01-06-2016
The weirdest of these so far is the one Chantel Jennings did for Oregon.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/96978/2015-pac-12-season-grades-oregon-ducks
She gives the offense an A with Adams, C without. Don't know how the Adams-less offense got that high a grade.
She gives the defense a C+, despite noting in her Oregon State review that Oregon is the only Pac 12 team ranked behind the beavs in defense (scoring and yards).
That all led to an overall grade of B+ (with Adams) to B (without).
Don't think most UO fans would give the Adams-less duckies a B this year.
Re: Grades - washingtonismoney - 01-06-2016
I'm not sure there's a curve in Prof. Jennings' class; more of a flat, high line.
Re: Grades - stupac2 - 01-06-2016
CTCard, I saw that too. Previously posters on here had harped on her for her homerism, I didn't really think much of it. But holy crap, that's some serious grade inflation. Oregon's defense should get an F, by any standard they were one of the worst in the country. The overall product being so reliant on an apparently injury-prone player surely merits stepping the grade down. I can't imagine that season being a B relative to expectations.
Re: Grades - CTcard - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 03:55 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:CTCard, I saw that too. Previously posters on here had harped on her for her homerism, I didn't really think much of it. But holy crap, that's some serious grade inflation.
I'm not sure it's exactly homerism. I think the duckie homers are generally quite down on their team right now and would grade the team much lower than a B. They'd likely assert that a B performance means only making the Rose Bowl rather than the playoffs.
Re: Grades - stupac2 - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 04:01 PM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14323.msg151561#msg151561 date=1452120948]
CTCard, I saw that too. Previously posters on here had harped on her for her homerism, I didn't really think much of it. But holy crap, that's some serious grade inflation.
I'm not sure it's exactly homerism. I think the duckie homers are generally quite down on their team right now and would grade the team much lower than a B. They'd likely assert that a B performance means only making the Rose Bowl rather than the playoffs.
[/quote]
Maybe, but it takes a certain... something to give out those grades. Maybe she gave OSU's season a C+ and she just doesn't understand grading.
Re: Grades - winflop - 01-06-2016
(01-06-2016, 02:55 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/97078/2015-pac-12-season-grades-stanford-carudinal
Not surprisingly, we pretty much aced our season. The defense merits a B-, which is reasonable. It played well-enough for most of the year, but didn't excel until the end. But nice to see the D with its best games at the end.
BC
I disagree with the B- for the defense unless that is being measured in absolute terms. Expectations were not high with only 2 returning starters, the already thin DL was further damaged when Phillips went down, and the very young DBs did much better than expected. B+/A- from me.
Re: Grades - fullmetal - 01-06-2016
Stanford Defense outperformed as a unit, imho. Injuries would reduce the absolute grade though.
Re: Grades - larkinforever - 01-06-2016
Further to previous posts, I wouldn't get too worked up about the letter grade.
Stanford D --- B- grade. Stanford D --- at worst finished top 4 (in Pac 12) in scoring, yards and yards/play under various splits (conference opponents, FBS I-A opponents, FBS winning opponents, FBS Power 5 opponents, etc.)
Oregon D --- C+ grade. Oregon D --- at best finished bottom 3 (in Pac 12) in the same categories and same splits.
Re: Grades - washingtonismoney - 01-06-2016
B- is a bit generous on absolute terms. Given the total lack of experience, however, I think it was about in line with my expectations. And certainly there are a number of young players who look capable.
Re: Grades - larkinforever - 01-06-2016
Re: Jennings homerism
I kind of see these 3 as similar (not identical by any means, but horse shoes and hand grenades):
C. Jennings --- Oregon
D. Lombardi --- Stanford
D. Pollack --- SEC