taking the ball first in the 2nd half gives you a 50/50 chance of an extra possession, but taking it first in the 1st half gives a 0% chance?!?!?!?
those two statements are true iff 1 - 0.5 = 0
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Arizona State is nothing to laugh at
- Thread starter #1 pick
- Start date
those two statements are true iff 1 - 0.5 = 0
Can we all agree that they shouldn't be overlooked AND they should be laughed at?
C’mon man. Don’t Hokie this.
Preston Slaughter
Well-Known Member
You have better odds of getting more possessions than your opponent in the second half if you receive the ball in the second half. Same thing for the first half if you receive in the first.
The key is that second half possessions are more valuable in close games because you are dealing with more information and less variables in the outcome of a game.
I agree 100% with those statements, but that's very different than what another poster is asserting here
No. It’s not. It’s exactly the same thing.
- post something that appears to be fake news
- get challenged on it
- respond with information somewhat related to the topic but fails to address
- have this politely pointed out to you
- respond with math that simply makes no sense
- get challenged on it
- respond with ad hominem attack
<rhetorical>really? that's how you want to play this?</r>
Last edited:
Why are you like this?
Hokie, if you spent half as much time research the issue as you did writing this post accusing someone of posting fake news, you'd have an answer. Your intellectual rigor is only matched by your intellectual laziness.
Receive Or Defer: Does Either Provide An Advantage? | Sharp Football
Does it matter more if NFL teams choose to receive the opening kickoff or defer to the second half?
www.sharpfootballanalysis.com
because I don't think personal attacks are warranted in a civil discussion
snow, if you spent half as much time reading the information at the link you posted as you did chiding me, you'd realize that article doesn't answer the question whether the team getting the ball first in the 2nd ends up with an extra possession over the course of the gameHokie, if you spent half as much time research the issue as you did writing this post accusing someone of posting fake news, you'd have an answer. Your intellectual rigor is only matched by your intellectual laziness.
Receive Or Defer: Does Either Provide An Advantage? | Sharp Football
Does it matter more if NFL teams choose to receive the opening kickoff or defer to the second half?
Haven't you been here long enough to know civility is a thing of the past?
no, I believe adults can disagree agreeably
God bless you, that's why I love your posts.
I felt the conclusion addressed that. What am I missing?
of course, disagreeing without being disagreeable may require the ability to admit when one is mistaken. not everyone has that.
if you see information correlating "ball first in 2nd half" to "total possessions in the game", I missed it
I like pissy hokie. You go donny!
Jesus, people. From what I can gather - there is no "statistical" advantage to deferring. If so, why do teams defer 75% of the time? Coaches believe there is a momentum opportunity by being able to score on two straight drives. Or Belichick started doing it, so everyone else did.
From here: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/7416/should-nfl-teams-defer-after-winning-the-coin-toss
The article also mentions that deferring teams have been more successful that those receiving, but Mays does much better job putting the results in context than some others who claim that the higher winning percentage of deferring teams actually proves anything. The reason the higher winning percentage doesn't mean anything is because the teams choosing to defer is not a random sample. It could just be that better teams -- like the Patriots -- are choosing to defer more often, and that's skewing the results.
Something absent in the many articles -- and I was shocked by this -- on deferring is a look back at pre-deferral winning percentages, where the kick and receive cohorts were randomly assigned. Remember, before a team could choose to defer, winning the coin toss meant you had to receive, or else you where giving your opponent the ball first and the choice to receive in the second half -- not a bright move.
Well, we have that data to analyze. I took pre-deferral data (2000-2007) and calculated the winning percentages for those who lost the coin toss and kicked to start the game (exactly the same as those choosing to defer now), and those who won the coin toss and received the opening kickoff.
The results over a sample of 2,110 games, with teams randomly assigned to the kicking and receiving groups, show that there probably isn't any advantage to kicking first and receiving in the second half. In fact, the results show that there could be an advantage to receiving first; however, a binomial test on the results yields a p-value of 0.13, or not statistically significant at the commonly used 95 percent confidence threshold.
From here: https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/7416/should-nfl-teams-defer-after-winning-the-coin-toss
The article also mentions that deferring teams have been more successful that those receiving, but Mays does much better job putting the results in context than some others who claim that the higher winning percentage of deferring teams actually proves anything. The reason the higher winning percentage doesn't mean anything is because the teams choosing to defer is not a random sample. It could just be that better teams -- like the Patriots -- are choosing to defer more often, and that's skewing the results.
Something absent in the many articles -- and I was shocked by this -- on deferring is a look back at pre-deferral winning percentages, where the kick and receive cohorts were randomly assigned. Remember, before a team could choose to defer, winning the coin toss meant you had to receive, or else you where giving your opponent the ball first and the choice to receive in the second half -- not a bright move.
Well, we have that data to analyze. I took pre-deferral data (2000-2007) and calculated the winning percentages for those who lost the coin toss and kicked to start the game (exactly the same as those choosing to defer now), and those who won the coin toss and received the opening kickoff.
| Win Percentage | |
|---|---|
| Kicking Team | 48.8% |
| Receiving Team | 51.2% |
The results over a sample of 2,110 games, with teams randomly assigned to the kicking and receiving groups, show that there probably isn't any advantage to kicking first and receiving in the second half. In fact, the results show that there could be an advantage to receiving first; however, a binomial test on the results yields a p-value of 0.13, or not statistically significant at the commonly used 95 percent confidence threshold.
I'm referring to the 12% chance of "stealing" a possession. I guess I get your point that if you end the first half with possession, there has been an equal number of possessions. But having back to back possessions in the middle of the game - when the outcome is far less likely to be determined - is essentially a bonus possession. Just looking at total possessions in the game is a poor measure of value. The value must incorporate when that possession occurs. In this case, you have a 12% chance of getting a bonus possession when it matters most.
I don't disagree with anything you stated here. But, that's different than what another poster was arguing.
It's not a bonus possession. The author just inaccurately wrote it that way. There is a 12% chance that the deferring team scores in the last minute of the first half and on the opening drive of the second half. That doesn't mean there is a 12% chance of an extra possession.
Since I don’t see any ASU fans in this thread, I choose to believe that they are overlooking us.
Buffman64
Well-Known Member
CU was 1-11 last year, and they almost lost to CSU this year. They can't afford to overlook any team on the schedule, and I don't think they will overlook ASU. I would rather have seen this game be a night game than a 3:30 PM kickoff, but CU shouldn't be too disadvantaged by the earlier game time in the AZ heat. The USC game was a real test of character, as CU could have folded once USC got ahead early after Oregon blew out CU. So many CU teams in the recent past would have quit in that situation, but this team didn't. I expect CU to take care of business on Saturday.
I simply have more faith in the offense to score or pick up a couple first downs at the very least and put the defense (the weaker unit) in a better position, than I do the defense to go out and get a stop to start the game.
As CP did against CSU in OT (although I still disagree with what he chose to do in OT even though it worked), I'd rather our offense apply pressure to the opposition, rather than allow the opposition gain confidence by marching down the field on the first possession against a fairly bad defensive unit.
As CP did against CSU in OT (although I still disagree with what he chose to do in OT even though it worked), I'd rather our offense apply pressure to the opposition, rather than allow the opposition gain confidence by marching down the field on the first possession against a fairly bad defensive unit.