ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooDon’t feed the troll!ooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

One of my church member just die three weeks ago with a Pneumonia. The doctor missed it and sent him home. By the time they discovered later, it was too late. He was in his early 30.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By changing how they calculate grad rate, the NCAA departed from the previous Federal standards for graduation rate. It gave all schools a potential bounce just by redefining who is included in the stats. As it turned out, it didn’t affect Stanford’s grad rate in any statistically significant way, probably because the vast majority of our football players graduate in 5 years rather than the 6 years the NCAA uses. But Cal’s “bounce” has to be evaluated with this gift from the NCAA in mind.

Also, before claiming heartening gains, Cal supporters should recognize that the 2008 number finally gets back to where Cal was in 2004 with intervening years of decline conveniently forgotten. So, as a public service Cal’s football grad rates by year:

2008–52%
2007– 44%
2006– 47%
2005– 48%
2004– 50%
2003–49%
2002–48%

There’s a trend in there, all right. I think statisticians call the phenomenon regression to the mean. If you look at the trends, Cal gets a break with its anomalous 44% number in 2007, but its improvement is really only 4% over its long term mean, and that’s with the NCAA rule-change “bump”.

Any response to this?

“The trend among Cal Pac 10 1st and 2nd team All Academic football honorees (not a lagging indicator) is not as positive:

2002 – 11
2003 – 10
2004 – 9
2005 – 4
2006 – 5
2007 – 4

You can see what Tedford has accomplished once the recruits of his predecessor finished their eligibility. Those 2005, 2006 and 2007 honorees are almost all his recruits.”