There are arguments to be had, I'm simply more skilled at finding them.
As to your question, I probably would not approach it in the same fashion in which you apparently approach the question. I don't find a whole lot of value in perusing the statistical records and drawing systemic conclusions from them. For example, the ND Nation intelligentsia consult the statistical record and conclude that Charlie was largely a failure because the ratio of ground-to-air offensive production was entirely lopsided. Of course, there are tremendously successful coaches with similar ratios. More competent coaches make it work. In your case, you look at the number of turnovers and conclude that this is the overarching cause of failure against UM. You may be correct that this statistic is the most important one at which to look. Where we seem to diverge is your confidence that this will be corrected. What leads you to this conclusion? Perhaps your answer will be different than the response of others, which amounts to the assertion that those turnovers were the results of chance and luck and, thus, ND is due for some better luck.
|
