A recent study rating 100 college football players showed a strong relationship between their number of colds caught per year and their team's records. Of the players studied those who had the fewest colds had teams with the win/loss ratios that were, on average, 50% higher that teams with players that caught more colds. These results suggests that if a college football
team wants to win, it should recruit players that catch a lower number of colds per year than their peers.
Football is a popular sport in many countries. College football is popular sport in many Universities. Recently, a study claims that the win loss ratio of the college football is directly affected by the colds caught by the football players. The less the cold caught by the players more the winning chance of the team. This reasoning seems unwarranted because winning percentage of football depends upon the skill of the players, the management of the players by the coach, and the formation of the team as a whole rather than minor diseases like cold.
For any team to win, the players present in the team must have the necessary skills to perform well during competitive matches. As the study claims cold for the reason of loss, the team players are ignoring the fact that they are perfunctory about their game. If cold is the only reason for their loss, it would be the most shameful reason for their loss. Cold and flu are minor disease that at most affects a player for two weeks. But, the game goes for full season round the year. The whole reason for the loss in the entire season cannot be because of the cold caught by some players. The winning depends upon the skill of the coach to manage the players and the enthusiasm of the team as a whole to win the matches. If some major players got cold during some important matches because of which the whole moral of the team went down, then only whole season of the game might be affected. Thus attributing cold to the loss of some games does not explain the loss in the entire season.
I also see limitations in the study itself. Instead of getting information on the player's skill and practice they are doing on field, the study is more concerned about minor reasons of the player’s fitness. The study is not doing a proper research because either the people asking such questions are not being serious or the players are making an excuse about the bad performance by saying it is due to the cold. I am also not satisfied by the suggestion given by the study because nobody knows if the player is going to catch cold and impair the winnings of the team just by looking at the player during the selection process. Even if a player has cold during the selection process it does not mean that he does not have the skill and talent to play football. As nobody knows the future he might even be the most essential player for the winnings.
Therefore, instead of studying minor aspects of the player's that does not determine the win for the team, the study should mainly focus on the training's and skills possessed by the players. By giving the stats of the players overall fitness in the entire season and the way the coach is handling these players the study can make accurate decision about the win loss ratios of the college football teams.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-08-10 | Bishal Bhandari | 60 | view |
- A recent study rating 100 college football players showed a strong relationship between their number of colds caught per year and their team s records Of the players studied those who had the fewest colds had teams with the win loss ratios that were on av 60
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today. 50
- It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts that it is for them to learn facts. Agree or disagree? 60
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated. 50
- Nature should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even it these areas could be developed for natural gain. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- minimum 3 arguments wanted.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2259 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.482 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.198 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 52 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.108 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.409 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.513 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'players'' or 'player's'?
Suggestion: players'; player's
.... Instead of getting information on the players skill and practice they are doing on fi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, so, then, therefore, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2302.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.56746031746 5.12650576532 89% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.27157151836 2.78398813304 82% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40873015873 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 677.7 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.3 1.59920159681 81% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.978551178 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.636363636 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9090909091 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.36363636364 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.367184433014 0.218282227539 168% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130054058961 0.0743258471296 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0712433389187 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253581620132 0.128457276422 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0268253472485 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 74.53 48.3550499002 154% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.197005988 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.52 12.5979740519 76% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.17 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.