The Deep Deception Pit of Faulty Comparisons (long)

Jan 2, 2016, 12:35 AM

I went to the Orange Bowl.

I'm posting this from Cloud 9; hopefully, it won't be washed away by all the rain before it lands in the world of Tigernet, lol.

While burning up my phone during my travels home, I saw two posts that got me to thinking, and I just want to comment because, well, I just do.

1. Curious as to what our fellow ACC brethren may be saying with regard to their expectations about Clemson's winning it all, I read a post about how one particular school believes it is "almost there" too because they played us far more closely than OU did. My thoughts go much further than the fallacy of the simple transitive property. You see, all of the past 15 years, especially, as Clemson began a slow trajectory of improvement, we would find ourselves holding a Goliath team to a close game...or even beating Goliath...which always caused us as fans to wring our hands about how close we really were (or how that Goliath really wasn't Goliath after all). We always seemed to be a piece or two or inch or two (or more, in reality) away from being a Goliath. Truth is, we were far from being a Goliath, because to be a Goliath means to be a consistent winner. And THAT is the KEY difference. We eventually beat FSU. But that did not make us equal to FSU. And it didn't mean FSU was equal to us. It only verified that, absolutely, so many teams are capable of beating a Goliath on any given day...but that does not make them a Goliath. The chasm is actually quite large between the team that may have beaten the Goliath and that team's BEING a Goliath. It varies how long it may take to close the chasm, but it does take time and some sort of sacrifice.

Clemson beat LSU a few years ago. But we weren't a Goliath. We beat Ohio State after that, but we weren't a Goliath. Why? Because we had not yet reached a point of consistency where we could win not only the games we were supposed to win, but also all of the necessary big games that lead to championships. Duke and GT found themselves in an ACC championship situation. We even did. But they and we were still not consistent winners. We were not Goliaths.

NC State could have beaten us this year. UNC could have beaten us. South Carolina could have beaten us. And in previous years, one or two of them would have. But, this year, they did not.

Dabo keeps saying the best is yet to come. I do think Clemson has made a huge step. However, consistency by definition takes time to be proven. We are absolutely on a consistent level which should only get better, if we continue to "do what we do." I have no reason to doubt Dabo. That means he is building a Goliath.

So it is self-deceiving if a fellow program in the ACC (other than FSU), even if they beat us (or ACC foe FSU) - or lose closely - compares their accomplishments to us (or FSU) and draws the conclusion that they have arrived as a Goliath. AGAIN, even Clemson, as successful as we currently are, is still on an upward trajectory, and while we can claim to be the nation's best THIS YEAR (and we are, I believe), we cannot currently claim to be equal to more consistent programs. Consistent dominance is our goal.

Dabo and the staff and players have worked very hard for many years to get to this point. Dabo has been weaving a winning culture into the fabric of our program. He has added discipline and other expectations, like academic performance. He has been committed to consistency. The administration, alumni, and fanbase have been investing in our program. We have improved in all facets. The foundation is far more important than a single game. I truly believe Clemson is actually appreciably farther ahead than most other programs in the ACC based on this. So, while we still could lose to any ACC team...or barely beat them...it is faulty to draw a conclusion that that other school is even almost equal.

As an example: Ole Miss is good this year. Just watched them dominate Oklahoma State. Ole Miss is improving. They beat Bama. But they are not almost Bama. They are especially good this year because (1) they had a monster recruiting class in 2013; (2) they have a good QB (whom Clemson helped improve in a big way, btw, for their gain); and (3) they have largely remained healthy, as opposed to previous years. Once their studs leave for the NFL (this year?), depth will be an issue at least in some positions. While Ole Miss has recruited pretty well, they have not consistently done so like 2013, and they have not finished building the other pieces. If they do, they can enter that next level. So, while they beat Bama, they lost to Florida, Arkansas, and Memphis (all beatable teams). They have another monster recruiting class coming in, but, as we know, all it takes is an injury here, a bust there, and depth may not carry them. They won't pass that hump to being a Bama-type program right away. (And, btw, Bama is certainly not immune from declining into a mediocre or even poor program. Dabo even recently spoke about the "life" of an organization and what's necessary to continue to survive at a high level).

It really is hard to become that Goliath.

ESPN has thrown so much spin into the college world that truth, while always there, has been hard for the average Joe to see. But truth always wins out.

Dabo has known it longer than the rest of the spin masters and believers have even allowed themselves to entertain it: Clemson is for real, and Clemson is not a passing fad. SCAR is nowhere close right now, no matter how close this year's game was. Neither are several of our ACC brethren. That's why the transitive property absolutely is faulty.

2. Now, with regard to a question I have seen at least twice posted here: Who would win if the 1981 team played this 2015 team?

I have seen all sorts of arguments, but the general consensus is that the 2015 athlete is bigger, stronger, faster, better, etc., than the 1981 athlete. The 2015 schemes are superior to the 1980 schemes. The 1980's athletes' minds would be blown with today's schemes. The Fridge was a freak in 1981, but now it is common to have such athletes. Training technology, diet, etc. are superior today. No contest: The 2015 team would demolish the 1981 team.

Just a few thoughts:

a. Today's athletes are the offspring of the 1980's generation, which happens to be mine. So, has, in one generation, the athlete become so incredibly superior that it's no contest?

b. IF the two teams were to play each other (in their prime), are today's athletes truly naturally better, or did their improvement occur due to their ENVIRONMENT?

c. If the 2015 athletes were BORN to be faster, bigger, stronger, and more athletic, well, then, there is only one conclusion we can make: My generation has SUPER BIONIC sperm and eggs!!! WE ARE THE GENETIC FREAKS OF NATURE, BABY!!! Stop bragging on today's athletes and give us the blue ribbon!!

d. Let's instead consider this: Might it be the environment? Technology? Training advancements? Medical advancements? Even some things that shouldn't be a part of the equation, like PEDs (and, yes, I am aware of the existence of certain drugs of the 1980's)?

e. While I believe most likely the 2015 team would beat the 1981 team, it isn't because the individual athlete has evolved into a better one. Schemes aside, because I absolutely agree that the game itself has evolved into a more diverse assortment of schemes, I do believe that today's athlete is overall "better" due to being more...advantaged. But I don't agree that our genes are becoming bionic and producing advanced athletes (notwithstanding gene therapy). I think each generation has had elite athletes that, if subjected to EQUAL environments, would provide for a very cool hypothetical competitive scenario. In other words, I believe that our 1981 team, had they benefited from the same environmental conditions as our 2015 team, would have had players that would have given this 2015 team fits. Game on!

So, comparing 2015 with 1981 with no more consideration of environment is rather misleading. Imagine what our OLs of the 1980's could have been like with today's advancements in technology, medicine, and training. Consider their mental toughness, pure athletic potential, etc. Hey, maybe even some of it is due overall to less attractive variables, like the steroids in our meat supply. Imagine how even greater a "freak" William and Michael Dean would have been. Imagine how much faster the athletes of the 1980s would have been. Talk about "fantasy football," lol.

Well, time for me to retire for the night and dream of national championships and all other sorts of wonderful Clemson things. I can't wait for the "bests that are yet to come!"

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Same age here

A. I think today's athletes are clearly bigger, stronger, faster.....especially bigger and stronger.

B. Because of A, I think today's team would relatively manhandle the 81' team.

C. That's no slight to the 81' team. The 81' team achieved all they could possibly achieve.

D. The talk BEFORE the Orange Bowl in 81' was almost identical to the talk we are hearing today concerning Bama.

E. While I think today's athlete is better (I will take some credit for my super bionic procreative capabilities......cuz I'm Gumby ######!!!!) yesteryear's athletes were no slouches. "Fridge" leg pressed over 700lbs. Lee Nanney benched over 500lbs. Perry Tuttle could absolutely jump out of the gym.

Bama will be a giant (you might even say Goliath) task. Nebraska was no different in 81'. Smash'em, stomp'em, crush'em, trick'em, fool'em, dazzl'em. Just get it done......and let's act like we've been there before.....cuz we have!!!

The Deep Deception Pit of Faulty Comparisons (long)

Wow, you must be an English Lit. teacher or sumpin like that

Both very good posts!

Re: The Deep Deception Pit of Faulty Comparisons (long)

Re: The Deep Deception Pit of Faulty Comparisons (long)

Goliath was a trash-talking wuss

Goliath was Baker Mayfield in a taller meat suit...

TigerBoard POTD