scorpion@titan.rice.edu@rice.EDU (Vernon Lee) (09/16/86)
In article <1127@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> melissa@mit-athena.UUCP (Melissa Silvestre) writes: >There was one point in one of the NFL games, in which the receiver stopped >running after he stepped out of bounds, even though the referree had not >whistled the ball dead yet. The commentators said they figured the runner >just assumed the ref saw it, and they said something to the effect that >he should just keep on running because you never know what the refs might >miss. > >If there's one morality pro sports teaches, it seems to be that "it's >only wrong if you get caught." I don't watch college sports, so I don't >know if it is similar at that level. I know as a soccer player, about high school level my coaches start saying things like "if you hand the ball, don't act guilty, maybe the ref didn't see it." I'm told in professional soccer that players do everything illegal they can get away with. One coach taught me how to hurt someone badly when the ref wasn't watching... >Melissa Silvestre (melissa@athena.mit.edu) scorpion (Vernon Lee Jr.) +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | These are my opinions; | | anybody who agrees with me is a surprising coincidence. | | | | "Husbandry would be most efficacious" - Mr. Spock | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/17/86)
In article <5987@lll-crg.ARpA> figmo@lll-crg.UUCP (Lynn Gold) writes: > >I was a lousy athlete up to high school -- NON-athlete is a more >accurate representation. When I transferred to a small, private >school for high school, there was a much stronger push for EVERYONE to >get involved with athletics because when your school is THAT small, >you NEED warm bodies just to fill up a team. Surprisingly, though, >our school fielded some damn good teams. Since the headmaster had 5 >or 6 daughters who were all outstanding athletes, there was a strong >girls' sports program. A study of Bryn Mawr alumnae indicated that women who were on athletic teams in college were HALF as likely to develop breast cancer than women who were not athletes. Needing warm bodies is right. They're a heck of a lot more lively than cold bodies, which is what you're likely to wind up with if you develop breast cancer. >Any other coach would have discouraged me, but Floss Brudon, the main >girls' gym teacher and coach, encouraged anyone who wanted to to go >out for sports. There was a policy against cutting anyone from any >team just because they weren't a great athlete. Another policy >throughout the school's sports program was that "How Well You Played >The Game" was emphasized over winning. If we played our best but were >still defeated, we were praised for playing our best. If we won >mostly because we were sloppy but the other team was sloppier, we were >criticized for playing a sloppy game. Another policy was that >everyone who showed up to play got to play -- even if it was only for >five minutes because the game was tight. What game? Soccer, Field Hockey, Softball, Lacrosse? I wasn't all that active an athlete myself, but the few seasons of team sports I did play, golly did we ever have FUN. One of our favorite things in frosh field hockey was to hang out the windows of the bus on the way to/from an "away" game and act like "spazzes" or "mentals". It was like something out of a Lynda J. Barry cartoon. "Carbo loading" was an excuse to see who could eat the most home-baked chocolate-chip cookies. And then there was the time in track we dragged coach Brush into the womens' locker room and gave him a shower in his clothes (it's amazing how strong 35 women are when united). And then there were the infamous "track films" by Richie Meister, which included a great deal of full frontal male nudity, plus a number of moons. >--Lynn > >P.S.--Wrt quality, our girls' lacrosse team was #2 in NJ my senior year! YAY! Womens' Lacrosse!!! It's a heck of a lot more fun than field hockey -- there are fewer spurious fouls (like the one in field hockey where you're not allowed to put your body in between the ball and the person who's trying to get it away from you, not to mention the oft- called "offsides" -- offsides makes sense in a fast-moving game like ice hockey, but in field hockey?! It stops the play every 5 minutes! Also, the bounds are not well-defined, and the means of getting the ball back in play are a lot faster in lacrosse than in field hockey) So the game keeps moving. Moves a lot faster than field hockey, too. No body-checking in the women's game, so it's not the brutal battle that the men's game is--more fancy footwork and stick-checking is required. Cheryl
fox@bnrmtv.UUCP (Richard Fox) (09/19/86)
> Yeah! How about a team that can only score 16 points each game and > still get lucky enough to win? > > Whatever those guys are doing (Holding group prayer meetings at halftime, > performing human sacrifices during warm-ups, or sleeping with sheep) seems > to be working. They managed to get the clock to run out before St. Louis > could move that last yard, and then this week the voodoo curse worked on > Joe Montana's back. > > They shouldn't need any luck for their next three games (although having a > quarterback would be useful). The three following should be fairly routine > unless the Falcons are for real. But you can FORGET about week 9. After > they become lamb chops for the Bears the rest of their schedule will become > considerably difficult, and they should end up at 10 and 6 for the season. > > These guys will peeter out during the second half of the season, just like > last year. > > Condolences to the L.A. area, > > Zippy > > P.S. While we're on the subject of L.A. --- how 'bout them Raiders! I guess they had a half time bible recital with Brother Jed. (ha ha). Oh well. And as for the Raiders, I luv it...
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (09/19/86)
> In article <5987@lll-crg.ARpA> figmo@lll-crg.UUCP (Lynn Gold) writes: > > > >I was a lousy athlete up to high school -- NON-athlete is a more > >accurate representation. When I transferred to a small, private > >school for high school, there was a much stronger push for EVERYONE to > >get involved with athletics because when your school is THAT small, > >you NEED warm bodies just to fill up a team. Surprisingly, though, > >our school fielded some damn good teams. Since the headmaster had 5 > >or 6 daughters who were all outstanding athletes, there was a strong > >girls' sports program. > > A study of Bryn Mawr alumnae indicated that women who were on > athletic teams in college were HALF as likely to develop breast > cancer than women who were not athletes. Needing warm bodies > is right. They're a heck of a lot more lively than cold bodies, > which is what you're likely to wind up with if you develop breast > cancer. > Does this indicate that athletic women are less likely to develop breast cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? What efforts were made to control for other differences between the athletes and non-athletes? Raw statistics are the least useful numbers in the known universe. That must be why Cheryl likes 'em so much. Clayton E. Cramer
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/23/86)
In article <1075@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <5987@lll-crg.ARpA> figmo@lll-crg.UUCP (Lynn Gold) writes: >> > >> >I was a lousy athlete up to high school -- NON-athlete is a more >> >accurate representation. When I transferred to a small, private >> >school for high school, there was a much stronger push for EVERYONE to >> >get involved with athletics because when your school is THAT small, >> >you NEED warm bodies just to fill up a team. Surprisingly, though, >> >our school fielded some damn good teams. Since the headmaster had 5 >> >or 6 daughters who were all outstanding athletes, there was a strong >> >girls' sports program. >> >> A study of Bryn Mawr alumnae indicated that women who were on >> athletic teams in college were HALF as likely to develop breast >> cancer than women who were not athletes. Needing warm bodies >> is right. They're a heck of a lot more lively than cold bodies, >> which is what you're likely to wind up with if you develop breast >> cancer. >> > >Does this indicate that athletic women are less likely to develop >breast cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? Does all of the statistical correlation between smoking and incidence of lung cancer indicate that people who smoke are more likely to get lung cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? >What efforts were made to control for other differences between the >athletes and non-athletes? They also studied marital status, age, number of children and diet. None of these correlated as strongly as involvement in athletics. >Raw statistics are the least useful numbers in the known universe. >That must be why Cheryl likes 'em so much. Clayton E. Cramer Clayton, if you ever need any help pulling your head out of your ass, don't come crying to me.
chiu@princeton.UUCP (Kenneth Chiu) (09/26/86)
In article <1079@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP (cheryl) writes: >In article <1075@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >>Does this indicate that athletic women are less likely to develop >>breast cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? > >Does all of the statistical correlation between smoking and incidence >of lung cancer indicate that people who smoke are more likely to get >lung cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? Correlation and causality are not the same. Is this person trying to be funny, or is she just making a sarcastic remark that she realizes is actually inaccurate, but is just highly annoyed by Clayton? -- Kenneth Chiu UUCP: princeton!chiu Princeton University Computer Science Department BITNET: 6031801@PUCC
jc@cdx39.UUCP (John Chambers) (09/29/86)
> >>Does this indicate that athletic women are less likely to develop > >>breast cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? > > > >Does all of the statistical correlation between smoking and incidence > >of lung cancer indicate that people who smoke are more likely to get > >lung cancer? Or is there some more subtle cause of this statistic? You've got it backwards. In reality, tobacco *prevents* lung cancer. What happens is that people with a predisposition to cancer tend to become smokers in self-defence. If they didn't smoke, they'd die of cancer even earlier. Hey, you may think I'm being frivolous, but a couple years ago there was a paper published (I forget where - anyone out there with Medline access?) that claimed to show exactly this for the coffee/hypertension correlation. Not that reason will prevail in either case. Most people (including most medical people, sadly) insist on believing in post hoc reasoning, regardless of how often statisticians debunk it. -- John M Chambers Phone: 617/364-2000x7304 Email: ...{cthulhu,inmet,harvax,mit-eddie,mot[bos],rclex}!cdx39!{jc,news,root,usenet,uucp} Smail: Codex Corporation; Mailstop C1-30; 20 Cabot Blvd; Mansfield MA 02048-1193 Telex: 922-443 CODEX A MNSF Disclaimer: Opinions? What opinions? Them're all hard facks, buster!