I have it. It's just never been relevant.
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
I have it. It's just never been relevant.
I felt I was clear about that in my post. I never indicated that a team would be more likely to have an extra possession over the course of a game.
My point was that if you could have back-to-back possessions (regardless of whether or not you get a bonus possession in the game), the middle of the game seems like a great time for that.
Jesus, I can't even believe I'm responding. I don't really care. Just read my **** before responding next time. TIA.
Well now you are just being unreasonable.
I disagree, agreeably.
I still can't figure out what CP did in OT against CSU? He can talk his way out of most things, but I'll never agree with that decision.
Here is a semi-longform (Mtn-style) explanation of "stealing" a possession.
Games are a series of alternating possessions. If you map out possessions, there are two general possible scenarios up to the beginning of the second half. They look something like this
Teams are represented by X and O)
1) X O X O X O X halftime O X... (No added advantage to receiving in second half. The teams are alternating possessions for sixty minutes, with halftime just serving as a break.)
2) X O X O X O X O halftime O X... (Deferring team gets two meaningful possessions in a row.)
This can be a massive momentum changer, not unlike getting a free turnover in your favor. It is not unusual to see a team go from being down by one score, to being up by a score after this sequence. It can be massively defeating for a team to watch this scenario, without being caused by a mistake made on their end. Clearly, any time you can have two possessions back to back, it is an advantage.
But, it's more than that. Having more possessions in the second half is much more important than having them in the first half. In fact, every possession in a close game is more important than the one that came before it, as there is more information that dictates what you should do, and also what you need to do, to help secure a victory.
Games are a series of alternating possessions. If you map out possessions, there are two general possible scenarios up to the beginning of the second half. They look something like this
Teams are represented by X and O)1) X O X O X O X halftime O X... (No added advantage to receiving in second half. The teams are alternating possessions for sixty minutes, with halftime just serving as a break.)
2) X O X O X O X O halftime O X... (Deferring team gets two meaningful possessions in a row.)
This can be a massive momentum changer, not unlike getting a free turnover in your favor. It is not unusual to see a team go from being down by one score, to being up by a score after this sequence. It can be massively defeating for a team to watch this scenario, without being caused by a mistake made on their end. Clearly, any time you can have two possessions back to back, it is an advantage.
But, it's more than that. Having more possessions in the second half is much more important than having them in the first half. In fact, every possession in a close game is more important than the one that came before it, as there is more information that dictates what you should do, and also what you need to do, to help secure a victory.
Last edited:
But don't overlook them.
Fify
I get the theory. I don’t see the data from previous posts to support it Maybe I missed it in the back and forth. I’m going to DM Nate Silverman.Here is a semi-longform (Mtn-style) explanation of "stealing" a possession.
Games are a series of alternating possessions. If you map out possessions, there are two general possible scenarios up to the beginning of the second half. They look something like this
1) X O X O X O X halftime O X... (No added advantage to receiving in second half. The teams are alternating possessions for sixty minutes, with halftime just serving as a break.)
2) X O X O X O X O halftime O X... (Deferring team gets two meaningful possessions in a game.)
This can be a massive momentum changer, not unlike getting a free turnover in your favor. It is not unusual to see a team go from being down by one score, to being up by a score after this sequence. It can be massively defeating for a team to watch this scenario, without being caused by a mistake made on their end. Clearly, any time you can have two possessions back to back, it is an advantage.
But, it's more than that. Having more possessions in the second half is much more important than having them in the first half. In fact, every possession in a close game is more important than the one that came before it, as there is more information that dictates what you should do, and also what you need to do, to help secure a victory.
Three if the post INT drive ends the 1st half and they receive the kickoff in the 2nd half.
I prefer to agree, disagreeabley.
I read your post. If there was any confusion (I don't think there should have been - but maybe there was due to the pissy tone of your response), when I said the author inaccurately describes the data with the term of "stealing" a possession, I was referring to the guy who wrote the article that Snow posted - not you.
"Stealing" a possession implies that you are taking a possession from the other team - hence you get an extra possession. I don't think that term accurately describes what some of us are talking about. I don't feel strongly one way or the other - I can see reasons why it might be advantageous to have the possibility of back-to-back possessions in the middle of the game - or to increase the probability of extra possessions later in the game. But the data I posted showed that before implementation of the deferral rules, the receiving team actually had a higher win percentage.
His reasoning was because the defense couldn't stop them and he wanted to offense to apply the pressure, but even after a CU TD, the defense was still going to need to get a stop (with CSU having 4 downs instead of only 3) AND then potentially having to get a stop on a 2 pt conversion that CSU absolutely should have gone for when they scored their TD in OT1.
Whatever, it worked and CU won, but there's definitely a reason nobody takes the ball first in OT
Silverman?
Birch1
Well-Known Member
Not according to Norm’s old doctor. “I will not agree to disagree, I will disagree!”
Epic win for CP. A strategy straight out of Art of War. Now Dillingham can't use any sort of negative motivation tactics against the Buffs to motivate his team or he looks like a total Jackhole. Incredibly well done by coach. Bravo.
Probably for TCU
I saw a link to a study after the CSU game that showed there based on outcomes, the odds of winning are 50% for the teams with the ball first and 50% for the teams with the ball second.
I would care about this much more if our OC was willing to actually throw the ball beyond the LOS in the first quarter. Until then, it doesn't matter, because our offense can't move the ball anyway.
So here is the post that Hokie is trying to pin Not Sure down on. Hahahahaha. I believe that this is all based on a Hokie misunderstanding.
Hokie. Is it so outrageous to suggest that the more three and outs that your offense has, the more possessions your opponents will have? And if you know your offense starts a little slowly, that maybe that consideration should be part of your game plan?
I'm not suggesting that Not Sure's post doesn't deserve some discussion. But my impression is that you're trying to doggedly hold him accountable to something he didn't say.
Hokie. Is it so outrageous to suggest that the more three and outs that your offense has, the more possessions your opponents will have? And if you know your offense starts a little slowly, that maybe that consideration should be part of your game plan?
I'm not suggesting that Not Sure's post doesn't deserve some discussion. But my impression is that you're trying to doggedly hold him accountable to something he didn't say.
It was this one
I’m not sure, but I also thought Not Sure and some others were suggesting that deferring increases the probability of an additional possession - not in the 2nd half, but in the entire game. Again, I’m not sure, but that’s what I thought Not Sure was suggesting.
That's terrible form....just sayin'.I'm pretty sure I started this kickoff crap, and I really wish I hadn't.
Can we get this back on track?
I mean, this ain't no joke.