FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[wheels81]

Ok, Now a little statistics issue I have. 
Sacks = Tackles for loss = tackles
(All sacks = tackles for loss but not all tfl = sacks)
so why do they write 9 total tackles, 4 tackles for loss and 3 sacks.
Sounds a lot more going on that way I guess maybe puffing it up a bit?
Would it be more honest to say 9 total tackles, including (1 tackle for loss, and 3 sacks)

[usee]

Ok, Now a little statistics issue I have. 
Sacks = Tackles for loss = tackles
(All sacks = tackles for loss but not all tfl = sacks)
so why do they write 9 total tackles, 4 tackles for loss and 3 sacks.
Sounds a lot more going on that way I guess maybe puffing it up a bit?
Would it be more honest to say 9 total tackles, including (1 tackle for loss, and 3 sacks)

I agree its confusing but its always been that way to my knowledge. it is logical that a sack IS in fact a tackle for loss but not all TFL are necessarily sacks.

[usee]

I agree with most that the game of intrigue is the Carthage at Elmhurst game. I am going with Elmhurst in this one. Elmhurst is better statistically in virtually every category but in particular their defense is performing better against what I consider to be comparable preseason competition. To win in the CCIW you need to control the LOS and while Elmhurst has Kudyba and some talented db's and Carthage has Debouef, moore and shenault, I give the edge to Elmhurst by virtue of their experience on the offensive and defensive lines. add that to the fact the game is at Elmhurst and I pick the Bluejays to win by a score of 24-17.

[FormerCard]

My picks for the season:

Wheaton 7-0 (too deep and too talented to lose now)
Augie 6-1 (experienced offensive line and veterans abound)
Elmhurst 5-2 (this will be the surprise of the season. The bluejays are healthy and a veteran group returns. Journell will show his plan is working)
Carthage 3-4 (a little too young on offense to get back in the hunt)
Naperville 3-3-5 (what were you expecting?)
IWU 3-4 (green ain't mean compared to red)
NPU 1-6 (off my schneid and into the fire)
Millikin 0-7 (neihbur can't do it alone)

Let me correct you...  Its North Central College that goes  3-3-5   You didnt think I would catch that... i dont miss a thing.

[FormerCard]

Good press for the Ittersagen lad.  Well deserving.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ok, Now a little statistics issue I have. 
Sacks = Tackles for loss = tackles
(All sacks = tackles for loss but not all tfl = sacks)
so why do they write 9 total tackles, 4 tackles for loss and 3 sacks.
Sounds a lot more going on that way I guess maybe puffing it up a bit?
Would it be more honest to say 9 total tackles, including (1 tackle for loss, and 3 sacks)

I agree its confusing but its always been that way to my knowledge. it is logical that a sack IS in fact a tackle for loss but not all TFL are necessarily sacks.

Could someone clarify the definition of a 'sack'?  I've always thought it was a tackle of the qb for a loss (and that the phrase 'qb sack' was a redundancy) and that the tackle of anyone else for a loss (rb, receiver, etc.) was just that: a tackle-for-loss.  (I MIGHT make an exception for anyone else directly hiked the ball, but that is relatively rare - except for PK holders, who often ARE the qb!)  Have I misunderstood the term all these (MANY) years?

[Pat Coleman]

If the quarterback's intent is to run then it's a tackle for loss. It's only a sack if a pass was intended. It's a statistician's judgment call.

[Mr. Ypsi]

If the quarterback's intent is to run then it's a tackle for loss. It's only a sack if a pass was intended. It's a statistician's judgment call.

OK, that makes sense.  But can anyone other than the qb be 'sacked'?

[AndOne]

Officially-----NO


Welcome to the Professional Football Researchers Association web site. The PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and, in some cases, reconstructing professional football history.

When sacks became an official stat, they also received a very specific and limiting definition. For example, if a quarterback is flushed out of the pocket and gets one inch past the line of scrimmage, it's no sack.

[burly]

Good press for the Ittersagen lad.  Well deserving.

Agree.  Good article and even better story in the making...

[burly]

Officially-----NO


Welcome to the Professional Football Researchers Association web site. The PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and, in some cases, reconstructing professional football history.

When sacks became an official stat, they also received a very specific and limiting definition. For example, if a quarterback is flushed out of the pocket and gets one inch past the line of scrimmage, it's no sack.

This isn't a joke - http://www.footballresearch.com/

[redman04]

Officially-----NO


Welcome to the Professional Football Researchers Association web site. The PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and, in some cases, reconstructing professional football history.

When sacks became an official stat, they also received a very specific and limiting definition. For example, if a quarterback is flushed out of the pocket and gets one inch past the line of scrimmage, it's no sack.

This isn't a joke - http://www.footballresearch.com/

BP  +K  for you!  Since the debate with me brought you down  I'll pick you up!!!!   Come folks +K for our boy BP!!!!!
It's a Karma Party!!!! 

[Comet 14]

I'll join in on the Karma party

[Comet 14]

O.K so if said player had 3 sacks and 4 other tackles for loss this would be 7 tackles for loss?

[redman04]

O.K so if said player had 3 sacks and 4 other tackles for loss this would be 7 tackles for loss?

I don't think so because of this.

If the quarterback's intent is to run then it's a tackle for loss. It's only a sack if a pass was intended. It's a statistician's judgment call.

Not an expert or even smart, but I think that the statistician makes the call on one or the other and it would not be both.

Let the Karma party continue +K for you!!!!!