HCFord1 said:

I’ll ask the same question as the last time they released “points” index scores:

What the fuck am I looking at?

Click to expand...

HCFord1 said:

I’ll ask the same question as the last time they released “points” index scores:

What the fuck am I looking at?

Click to expand...

Pipe Line said:

In lamon’s terms, for the ones who fully tested and got all data collected, these guys are the most explosive and athletic guys on the team based on their body weight. It is a good thing. There’s been a lot of times in probably the decade where we’ve been physically outmatched. At this point in time, that gap has now closed and it’s no longer an excuse/reason for losing games

Click to expand...

HCFord1 said:

I’ll ask the same question as the last time they released “points” index scores:

What the fuck am I looking at?

Click to expand...

Pipe Line said:

In lamon’s terms, for the ones who fully tested and got all data collected, these guys are the most explosive and athletic guys on the team based on their body weight. It is a good thing. There’s been a lot of times in probably the decade where we’ve been physically outmatched. At this point in time, that gap has now closed and it’s no longer an excuse/reason for losing games

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

How good are you at doing integrals?

Click to expand...

HCFord1 said:

Well… based on a top secret formula that converts raw data into index points they are the most explosive. Personally I’d love to see the raw data.

Click to expand...

hothouse_corn said:

I'll try to make it simple, but I'm looking for a new job right now because I've not been deemed very good at teaching things to football fans and farm kids.

A 500 score for any of the lifts/runs is the average for an FBS football player that weighs the same as the person being tested. Above 500 is better than average, while below 500 is worse than average for that weight.

This is a guess that I could probably look up, but I'm lazy: the scale is based on a gaussian distribution where the mean is 500 but we don't know what the standard deviation is. My educated guess is the standard deviation is 50. Here are two examples given my S.D. guess:

Cam Taylor-Britt: 198 lbs, 525 lb squat, 557 index points

View attachment 3036
He's squatting more than 87.3% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Damion Jackson: 270 lbs, 644 lb squat, 608 index points
View attachment 3037
He's squatting more than 98.5% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Ford, does this help or make your head spin? Like I said, I've been told I'm not very good at teaching, so there's that.

Click to expand...

hothouse_corn said:

I'll try to make it simple, but I'm looking for a new job right now because I've not been deemed very good at teaching things to football fans and farm kids.

A 500 score for any of the lifts/runs is the average for an FBS football player that weighs the same as the person being tested. Above 500 is better than average, while below 500 is worse than average for that weight.

This is a guess that I could probably look up, but I'm lazy: the scale is based on a gaussian distribution where the mean is 500 but we don't know what the standard deviation is. My educated guess is the standard deviation is 50. Here are two examples given my S.D. guess:

Cam Taylor-Britt: 198 lbs, 525 lb squat, 557 index points

View attachment 3036
He's squatting more than 87.3% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Damion Jackson: 270 lbs, 644 lb squat, 608 index points
View attachment 3037
He's squatting more than 98.5% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Ford, does this help or make your head spin? Like I said, I've been told I'm not very good at teaching, so there's that.

Click to expand...

Pipe Line said:

I don’t know how to do the math, but I know what the outcome is supposed to be with the Husker Power system, and yeah this is certainly on the right track

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

Hothouse wants to know your thoughts on parametric vs nonparametric hazard models. Please keep it under 5000 words

Click to expand...

hothouse_corn said:

No he doesn't. That's a discussion for @Baron Winnebago and @Jim14510 to have privately or in a new thread.

Click to expand...

hothouse_corn said:

I'll try to make it simple, but I'm looking for a new job right now because I've not been deemed very good at teaching things to football fans and farm kids.

A 500 score for any of the lifts/runs is the average for an FBS football player that weighs the same as the person being tested. Above 500 is better than average, while below 500 is worse than average for that weight.

This is a guess that I could probably look up, but I'm lazy: the scale is based on a gaussian distribution where the mean is 500 but we don't know what the standard deviation is. My educated guess is the standard deviation is 50. Here are two examples given my S.D. guess:

Cam Taylor-Britt: 198 lbs, 525 lb squat, 557 index points

View attachment 3036
He's squatting more than 87.3% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Damion Jackson: 270 lbs, 644 lb squat, 608 index points
View attachment 3037
He's squatting more than 98.5% of BCS athletes at his weight.

Ford, does this help or make your head spin? Like I said, I've been told I'm not very good at teaching, so there's that.

Click to expand...

Pipe Line said:

Lol idk the top secret formula but we have seen the raw data. The raw data is their body weight, squat, hang clean, 10, 40, Pro, and Vert. We didn’t see the 40 so I guess we didn’t see all of it

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

Me and Jim just threaten each other's lives like adults not discuss shit you stats dweebs care about

Click to expand...

HCFord1 said:

I understand everything you wrote, but where are you getting their squat numbers from? Were those released separately?

I never saw anything with their actual squat and hang clean #s but maybe that was just my miss. That’s my only complaint here, is I was expecting to see actual lifting results and instead got an index number that should only mean anything to those working within the Husker Power program.

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

Hothouse wants to know your thoughts on parametric vs nonparametric hazard models. Please keep it under 5000 words

Click to expand...

Pipe Line said:

Real easy: no fuckin clue.


The math in my world that I can do:

1. How much weight is on the bar
2. How many CPM that drivers makes
3. How much hay/feed that cow has eaten
5. Eye ball test on how much that cow weighs

Click to expand...

hothouse_corn said:

It's weird how multiplying by 90 and adding 45 becomes natural.

Click to expand...