A small thread about the comically corrupt college football system. (1/?) #ClemsonVsOhioState #Alabama #NotreDame #NCAAF
1. Alabama. They have made it 6 years out of 7.
2. Clemson. They have made it 6 years out of 7.
(7/?)
4. Notre Dame. They have made it twice out of seven years but never won a game. In fact, they got blown out both times they were picked. But that's okay. (8/?)
(10/?)
More from Sport
A (long) thread on why Andrew is correct but ultimately incorrect…
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
Andrew is correct at the neurological level. The cognitive and ecological explanations of the brain and behaviour are completely different. Saying you’re an eclectic coach at this level is like saying you
Many coaches advocate for picking and choosing methods from a variety of theoretical camps, on the premise that which is best \u2018depends\u2019 on the player, the coach, etc and you want the biggest toolkit you can get.
— Andrew D Wilson (@PsychScientists) November 27, 2020
I think this is an error, which I will now attempt to defend
believe the earth is round and flat. It’s simply not possible.
You CANNOT say that in one activity you are helping players build representations/memory (cognitive) and in another activity you’re helping players attune to specifying information in the environment (ecological).
No matter how much we scream eclecticism, at the neurological level Andrew is correct. But after this Andrew is incorrect.
He is basing his critique of an ‘it depends’ stance at a neurological ‘representations vs information’ level (see his thread). But this isn’t the level that
‘it depends’ functions (in a coaching context). ‘It depends’ exists at the behavioural level (certainly not the neurological level). ‘It depends’ relates to decision making around individual and group differences, as well as context. Coaching, by and large, is about helping
people manage and change behaviour – how a coach does this will ‘depend’ on a number of individual, group and contextual factors. That is the most important level of coaching and we don’t have to go to the neurological level to deliver efficaciously and effectively
You May Also Like
1/Politics thread time.
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
Bad ballot design led to a lot of undervotes for Bill Nelson in Broward Co., possibly even enough to cost him his Senate seat. They do appear to be real undervotes, though, instead of tabulation errors. He doesn't really seem to have a path to victory. https://t.co/utUhY2KTaR
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 16, 2018
