Duke University research... | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Duke University research...

phinfan2003 said:
So when you "bump" an article that's a good thing right?
not if it is unimportant and obvious people aren't into replying. If it is a worthy post, people will keep posting and make it stay at the top. If it is a disclaimer then it will be stickied. "Bumps" are usually used in For Sale sections on forums when people keep replying and starting new for sale threads and your sale gets moved down off the first page out of site.
 
thedayafter said:
Urgent need.... as if.... who are you to set criteria.... you're probably too lazy to even read the review.... careful... you might actually learn something...

Check the posts... most support the thread....
now continue your snotty, hollier than thou approach.

It's not an urgent need, the 7% view to reply rate shows that.


FREE BUMP!!
 
what could possibly be "urgent" about this board on this date.... you are the one judging... not me.... again... if you don't like it don't read it.... clear enough...
 
I like the topic but uh..........

Could someone post the "cliff notes" from that paper? I'm pressed for time. :D
 
ZOD said:
I like the topic but uh..........

Could someone post the "cliff notes" from that paper? I'm pressed for time. :D
you don't have time for this highly important article??????



:D
 
Enough about the "bump"...

...and back to the topic of the post...

I found the comparison of NFL drafting to hiring recent college grads very interesting. I always felt no matter what the GPA, SAT scores, etc, you still don't have concrete evidence that your hire will be a good performer; the NFL draft is a good (although extreme) example of this. Despite all the research coaches put in - it's still a hit or miss process.

Even though I have a good GPA - as a recent college grad I would love to send this out to all those employers who insist on seeing transcripts, SAT scores, etc, thinking this is helping them make a quality hire. If coaches in the NFL with such an abundance of resources (time to research, watch tape, test athletes, etc) can't predict performance then what makes other employers think they can do any better?

Good post.

Duke still sucks though.
 
phinz_fan said:
Enough about the "bump"...

...and back to the topic of the post...

I found the comparison of NFL drafting to hiring recent college grads very interesting. I always felt no matter what the GPA, SAT scores, etc, you still don't have concrete evidence that your hire will be a good performer; the NFL draft is a good (although extreme) example of this. Despite all the research coaches put in - it's still a hit or miss process.

Even though I have a good GPA - as a recent college grad I would love to send this out to all those employers who insist on seeing transcripts, SAT scores, etc, thinking this is helping them make a quality hire. If coaches in the NFL with such an abundance of resources (time to research, watch tape, test athletes, etc) can't predict performance then what makes other employers think they can do any better?

Good post.

Duke still sucks though.

True enough....
 
It's the same in any position, actually...

Nothing that is measureable indicates the possiblity for either mediocre or superior performance - in virtually any field. Those people who get the high SATs and get into such places as Harvard Grad or Case, or the military academies are not any more guaranteed to be of "value" to their employer than the first pick of the first round is to the NFL team picking him.

Just as an aside - this is not exactly like reading a report by ESPN - it's a 59 page academic paper. That is not obviously for the faint of heart or intellect. Thanks for keeping it up so I could get a copy and scan it. Now, I'll go back and read it to see how far down in the draft the 'Phins should try to get. How about 5 second round picks.
 
59 pages?
Executive summary please. Oh wait, I bet I can sum it up in one sentence...
The draft is a crapshoot.
 
I think I am more irritated by employers who ask you brain teasers or riddles during job interviews (I'm in engineering). I love my current employer primarily because they didn't do that. I know the purpose is more to see how you respond to pressure but I still find it to be insulting. What an inaccurate and insulting way to pick a new hire.If I had it to do over again I would have walked out immediately on every interview that involved a riddle. :fire:

The last interview I had where they asked me a brainteaser after I answered I asked them "So...how many of you got it right the first time you heard it?". You could hear a pin drop in the room. That pretty much says it all.
 
Schleprock said:
what the hell?? Do you require attention? This is the second post in the past hour of yours that I have seen you "bump". The fact you have done it after just a short period of time each instance is even more annoying.

So you posted something and people didn't find it that interesting enough to warrant a reply. Move on


LOL @ byroan's laundry list of game score titles under his username!

Go take a nap...
 
Actually...

lotion said:
59 pages?
Executive summary please. Oh wait, I bet I can sum it up in one sentence...
The draft is a crapshoot.

It's a lot more like the equilibrium point in economics - where the cost and return are of equivalent values. Early draft choices have a much higher cost to return ratio than some picks later in the draft - I think mid second round or so is the equilibrium point, after that there is a decline in value for cost again. Basically, it says that unless you have the team all but set for a chamipionship run and need an absolutely critical part and are, as well, equally absolutely sure that the early first round is the point where you can find that part that best fits all the parameters of your needs - you shouldn't be drafting there.
 
RevRick said:
It's a lot more like the equilibrium point in economics - where the cost and return are of equivalent values. Early draft choices have a much higher cost to return ratio than some picks later in the draft - I think mid second round or so is the equilibrium point, after that there is a decline in value for cost again. Basically, it says that unless you have the team all but set for a chamipionship run and need an absolutely critical part and are, as well, equally absolutely sure that the early first round is the point where you can find that part that best fits all the parameters of your needs - you shouldn't be drafting there.

If those are cliff notes........ :lol:

So all the complaining we've done in the past about not picking prior to 18 or so has been for not. I guess the premise is that we've actually benefited from having a mid-round pick.

I actually considered thoughts similar to that in the past month.
 
Back
Top Bottom