toddm24
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • toddm24

      What a crock… you guys use data from the last 10 years and then somehow label teams that have been around 1 year in the FBS as dirty? All it takes is one game where the two teams get into shoving matches and your so-called stats are completely skewed. How can you call out a UTSA team that only has 1 year of stats and then make some veiled reference to The University of Miami. Hack journalism at its best. Did someone from Texas beat you guys up or something? LOL PLUS, the rules have gotten MUCH stricter in the last few years, the few years that coincidentally the new FBS teams have played. That, coupled with the smaller data set is much more likely the reason the new teams are at the top of your list than some retaliatory move by “physically outclassed” players. This article is a joke.

    • toddm24

      This is such a load of crap. You guys have no business using statistics until you take a statistics class. It’s not a coincidence that the newest FBS teams are on this list and that the newest (UTSA) is at the top. THEY HAVE ONLY PLAYED 1 YEAR IN THE FBS & YOU’RE USING STATISTICS FOR THE LAST DECADE. Plus, all of the new teams joined the FBS when newer, more protective rules have been instituted in just the last few years resulting in more personal fouls overall. Remember, the helmet to helmet, QB protections, horse collar, hits below the knees, etc. etc. have only come into existence in the last few years. So the rest of the FBS has the benefit of not only a full 10 years of data but less restrictive rules. What a hack job. You should redo this & only look at the last few years and see that how that list changes.