How can I counter your Sanchez example without defending Sanchez or dissing Tebow, thus my post would "turn this" Sanchez v Tebow argument, which you, earlier in the thread, essentially dismissed as crap that doesn't belong in this thread. EDIT: Also, it's a two-way street. You can't "turn this" thread into a Sanchez v Tebow argument when it's convenient. If you want to poke holes in the argument that the Patriots have a terrible pass defense and that Tebow's lack of passing success against them is a negative statement to his passing abilities then you'll have to find someone not named Sanchez to have an actual discussion.
/headshake. You said that the voting would be skewed by someone listing Tebow as the best. Here are your own words: The same skewing WOULD occur by players purposely leaving Tebow completely off the list because they tired of his media exposure. Now, let's look at your example. If 10 players each hated Tebow and they each voted for 10 different players, then you would have 100 players who were named to the list, and Tebow's name wouldn't be on there at all.
That's not true. You're acting as though Tebow gets a "minus". Being included on the list is a "zero" because the list is inclusion-based. 1 plus, 9 zero's for ten players versus 10 zero's doesn't explain how any player could leapfrog over Tebow given the high votes he's bound to receive (which you acknowledge). You're also not counting for name recognition which would give Tebow a bump unless there's collusion against him in the vote (which is impossible). You have to clarify your position on exclusive vs inclusive before you can continue to try and engage this topic, otherwise this is discussion is going nowhere.
Fixed it for ya Ok you literally just proved my point. You used a Sanchez v Tebow argument to back-up what you were saying. This thread isn't about a Sanchez v Tebow argument it doesn't belong here... This post of yours I'm replying to defines fallacious.
So to conclude, you completely misread what you were responding to. I said: and then you replied: Did I say that the use of Sanchez as an example was a Tebow v Sanchez argument? No. I asked: If you want to interpret as "you were using a Sanchez v Tebow argument by comparing Sanchez's performance against the Pats to Tebow's performance against the Pats" I'll remind you: I meant, generally, if I were to respond therefore I would turn this into a Sanchez v Tebow argument, and because you earlier said you didn't think those belonged here the only reason you'd welcome a Sanchez v Tebow argument would be out of convenience for your argument (a flip-flip, per se). However, in my opinion, because you baited me into a Sanchez v Tebow response, you were the one that started a potential Sanchez v Tebow discussion by necessitating that i argue Sanchez v Tebow.
If you get a zero, then you aren't included on the list. Each ballot that you are left off of lowers your score the same way being voted #1 raises/skews your score. If you will, that is how Tebow lost the Heisman one year. He had the most 1st place votes overall, but he lagged in 2nd and 3rd place votes because some sportswriters completely left him off their ballot.
Exclusion vs inclusion lists. This matters and it's probably why you're misunderstanding me. Top 100 = inclusion. Heisman = exclusion. Terrible example.
Earlier, I defined "turn this" as "forcing me to respond with a statement that makes this a Sanchez v Tebow debate". My bad for an edit that isn't 100% clear (no sarcasm). My bad for an edit that isn't 100% clear. Good according to who? How good Sanchez is is not part of this discussion. My praise implied that 200 passing yards against the Pats is no compliment (which CowboysFan implied it was). No it doesn't. My praise implied that 200 passing yards against the Pats is no compliment (which CowboysFan implied it was). My praise implied that 200 passing yards against the Pats is no compliment (which CowboysFan implied it was). It doesn't "come close" because I never responded to your post thus turning this into a Sanchez v Tebow argument which according to you does not belong in this thread.
The most important factors is sample size. Take the Heisman trophy award. There are only a certain number of players eligible (let's say 5). Given the small sample size, the voters can identify who to vote for (in addition to dropping Tebow) that would push Tebow down. If voters cast 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place (which I believe they do), Tebow earns a "negative" when a voters puts Bradford 1st, McCoy 2nd, and then let's say Graham Harrell 3rd (which is done assuming that voters on average perceive him as the 3rd-best player not named Tebow). This sort of small sample size with unofficial shared information allows voters to give Tebow a "negative" which is more actually like "relative negative", per se. That's exclusive voting, because they're actually able to "vote against" athletes in addition to "voting for" other athletes. Inclusive voting is very abstract. Inclusive voting has a large sample size, a less strict criteria, and little/no ability to have a sort of "coordinated effort" to push Tebow down in the rankings. Often, many selections in the bottom-part of inclusive ranking systems tend to be inaccurate. Given the inability to truly "vote against Tebow", appearing on the Top 100 list (but outside the top 90) is easily excused with high votes and name recognition. Let's take an aggregate model, given a pool of NFL players (say 1300) with significantly less voters (I have to assume that for realistic purposes the # of Top 100 NFL Player voters is significantly less than the # of NFL players eligible for the list). Ranks can be broken down into points as a 1-100 reciprocal (1st place = 100 points, 100th place = 1 point, not included = 0 points). (For simplicity I'm going to use 5's and 10's). Let's say Tebow gets voted 10th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, 45th, 50th, 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100 and then is left off of 25 lists (Tebow love < Tebow hate but Tebow love + Name recognition = Tebow hate in this case). Then, out of coincidence, let's assume that 10 of the 25 ballots "punish Tebow by leaving him off the ballot and including Kuhn instead of him"). A voter punishment theory under an inclusive voting system is extremely unlikely because those voters would need a coordinated effort (which I assumed) AND a significant amount of points given to Kuhn that counter-weighs Tebow's high votes. Kuhn receiving ten 100th place votes is equal in points to Tebow receiving two 95th place votes. I wish all of this could be easier to explain but I the easiest way I can explain it is by saying that I've learned a lot about voting systems through debate (I used to "do" debate and the event I did was based on voting so it was an example of inclusion and not exclusion because instead of making ranks points-based in a small sample they were preferential, making it impossible to "vote against" someone unless it was a coordinated effort done by over 50% of the voters. As a coach I teach HS students about this misconception because a lot of competitors falsely believe they were "voted against".) Also-- too lazy to proofread this post so if something doesn't make sense it means I should've gone back to edit it but forgot.
NFL players get a ballot and they vote in a top 20.That is the process. base don the 20 they vote in a list of 100 is generated. BTW Tebots, now that vandy is in the thread everyone needs to step up their game a bit
Ok. Same as I said before except the "points weight" is a factor of 5 (explanation of nfl player voting). That doesn't bode well for the legitimacy of the list. It's now even more difficult to vote against Tebow (extension of my response to a previous argument) AND the list is less credible (more of a plurality measure, name recognition means more, and unless they polled at least a quarter of the league this list is illegitimate). Because players only rank 20 there must be a huge drop-off in votes at a certain rank. I would continue to harp on but I'm exhausted talking about implications and voting. The fact that the list is 5 times the size of the ballot is absurd. After the "drop-off" on the list that had to have occurred, the order of the list doesn't matter because it's essentially random.
I may not agree with vandy..... Just about ever...but he is a very intelligent debater and makes a lot of valid points (I actually agree with his opinion that it's an inclusion not exclusion list). He's much more fun to debate than the average tebow hater who pulls from the same hate of responses "teblow sux" "teblow can't convert a forward pass" "Teebots are tools" "Tebows only popular because of his religious beliefs" etc etc....
But since all NFL players are under the rules that apply in your summation , at the end of the voting, Tebow STILL made the list. Think about it , the factors you site could just as easily have worked AGAINST Tebow in the voting but they didn't. It is amazing how so many "random" things happen to Tebow though, fumbles at the right time, timely TDs, opposing offenses collapse, opposing defenses are in the wrong formations, he makes this list etc. etc. etc. all things that could essentially be described random ....but at some point his luck is not luck at all if it just keeps happening...
