I'd be surprised if Auburn does not pass OSU in the human polls tomorrow. I don't have the computers in front of me, so I ddont know how that looks, but Auburn over Mizzou would obviously work betterr in the computers than OSU over MSU.
I suppose it's probably close, but I would be surprised to see the SEC get shut out if Auburn stays a one loss team.
I'd be stunned to see Auburn pass OSU tomorrow.
Or have I stopped beating my wife yet? Silliness and argumentative. I already admitted that Hoke wasn't worrying about the historical success rate in his decision making, but you asserted that any 2 point conversion had a better success rate than you supposed the OT win % was, which I guess you totally swagged at 50%. Now you're questioning some data that is pretty clear because it doesn't agree with your original false premise. I doubted that it was that high, which is why I went and looked it up, and sho nuff...
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
At this stage, it would seriously bring into question any integrity in the process, both currently and historically. Obviously it has flaws, but at least this flawed process has never done what it would mean if Auburn jumped a major conference undefeated team, regardless of real or perceived flaws with the undefeated major conference undefeated team. Yes, OSU's D sucks, but they are still undefeated and Auburn isn't, and now neither is the team they beat.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
But your data doesn't cover everything in regards to today's specific game.
The odds of going to overtime are historically 50/50 for each team. But anyone watching the Boise State/Oklahoma classic awhile back knew the odds were in Oklahoma's favor in OT. You just can't use historical data as a catch all in each scenario.
Both offenses today were playing better than the historical norm, but you refuse to acknowledge that or answer any of my totally fair questions. Yes I "swagged" that number, but you brought your data into in and don't want to answer any questions about it I guess.
I think with the number of events the historical percentage represents, any variables have been flushed out. Plus, the range is pretty small from decade to decade. I'll leave it to your desire to chase the rabbit further to come up with a swag for the probability of a successful conversion for this particular game. You have one failed event for your data pool, so we know its less than 100%. Happy algorithm hunting!
BTW, this seems to be the same rabbit trail that folks want to travel with win probability theory for baseball games. I'll pass traveling further down it. Say hi to Alice for me.
Last edited by traderumor; 11-30-2013 at 09:30 PM.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
Michigan fan here… Going for 2 was the correct call… You can't limp into OT with a punter as your kicker, and a defense that can't slow the running game. You weren't even supposed to be in the position to have a shot to win this game with under 30 seconds left. Play to win NOW…
Now for the play call… Not sure why Butt wasn't on the field (pretty sure he wasn't), and why it wasn't designed to go to one of the TE's… That was your play.
2010 Mock Draft Selections (picking for Rays)
Bryce Brentz
Brandon Workman
Kris Bryant
Matt Lipka
Rick Hague
2010 Mock Draft Selections (picking for Rays)
Bryce Brentz
Brandon Workman
Kris Bryant
Matt Lipka
Rick Hague
I did not see the examples you used as being fair questions, my response was intended to convey that I considered your questions to be so much chasing rabbits, and quite honestly, I was giving you credit for understanding how probability works and considered you to be just yanking my chain. I'm sorry you were offended by my sarcastic attempt at humor.
I disagree that the probability changes because of the high scoring nature of the game in the same way that a one run game is a one run game in baseball win probability, the actual score of the game is moot. Also, I do not think that looking at the matchup is at all relevant to get a feel for the overall probability of a successful, game winning two point conversion. It is reasonable to consider the success rate for a two point conversion under normal circumstances. So, if Idaho has hung with Florida St. to where it comes down to a game winning two point conversion, then the overall conversion rate is a valid benchmark. If in all the games ever played in NCAA, two point conversions are successful 40-45% of the time, then it applies here. To be honest, isn't that Statistics 101?
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
I don't have all the data I need or know how to collect it, so if you want to declare victory on that front, sure.
I know that in the history of college football teams are slightly more likely to fail a two point conversion rather than make it. Yet there are times where I feel (with nothing to back it up) the teams involved, momentum, and unique game conditions shift those odds to be in favor of converting. I felt that way today.
And I am on the Saber side of things with baseball...so please don't conflate me with the "old school" baseball crowd (if that's what you were going for). But as of right now, I think there still is room for "educated" gut decisions in football.
Why don't you guys start a thread and discuss this there. This is an Ohio State thread.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |