I guess you hate my perspective. I can live with it even if I don't hate yours. Both teams probably did squander opportunities. Maybe it was the fickle finger of fate that ruined it for one of the teams more so than poor play. Who knows. Perhaps an unexpected, untimely gust of wind that blew the FG attempt wide. Maybe it was a bird flying through the area that got "Randy Johnson-ed" and ruined the PAT.
Originally Posted by: wpr
Though I don't think you took it this way it was nothing personal, I just disagree with you on this issue. Wind is part of the game (unless you're a pansy from Minnesota and you play indoors). Kickers are supposed to compensate for the elements. If they fail to do so it is on them. Odds are if weather was a factor it was a factor for both teams for most if not all of the game. How often has a bird been struck by a field goal or extra point? How often have animals in general significantly impacted the outcome of an important play?
yes, so? The visiting team is the one calling the toss. They are at a statistical disadvantage because they are playing on the road. Calling the toss even things up a bit. Coin tosses are not a "non-football event". They have been using coin tosses since the beginning at the start of the game. It is therefore, a football event.
Originally Posted by: wpr
How? Who calls the toss is irrelevant. They have a 50% chance of being right. There is no strategy or ability involved in a coin toss. The away team is just as likely to win the coin toss if they call it as they would be if the home team called it. Coin tosses are a "non-football event" insomuch as they are irrelevant to any skill, attribute, quality, or thought process you would develop from playing the game. The two teams could just as easily play rock, paper, scissors at the start of a game to decide who kicks off and it would not have the slightest impact on the game of football. If you lined up Clay Matthews with a 1st grader at a local elementary school and had them play 1,000,000 games of coin toss they would split the series at about 50%. That would not be true for anything else in football.
silly analogy. The coin flip is only to determine who goes first. Not to determine the outcome of any play. The offense still has to execute. The defense still has to collapse in order for a team to win on the first possession. The team winning the toss only wins about a third of the time. With the kickoff being moved up the percent will decrease. Even knows this before hand. It is equitable for both teams.
Originally Posted by: wpr
Except for in overtime, with sudden death, the team that gets possession of the ball first has an inherent advantage. This is born out in the statistics. According to an article from advanced NFL stats, during 2000-2007 teams that won the coin toss won 60% of the time (compared to home teams only winning 51% of overtime games). That number seems about right given what I remember being cited just about every time a game goes to overtime.
For the team that wins the coin toss all they have to do is drive into field goal range and score (this hardly requires a collapse from the defense as you put it). For the team that losses the coin toss they have to stop the other team and then their offense has to come out and score (unless you have Al Harris, because he's just awesome).
If both teams get stopped on their first possession then the team that won the coin toss gets the ball back and now they've had two chances to the other team's one. No matter how long this goes on the team that wins the toss will either have the same number of chances to score (if the other team scores) or one more chance to score (if they score).
Since the team that wins the coin toss wins the game 60% of the time, that means on average they have had .6 more possessions per overtime game than the team that losses the toss. Or in other words, that's 74 more possessions for the teams that won the coin toss over the 124 overtime games from 2000-2007. That is NOT equitable.
And by the way there is indeed chance involved in a game. Players combine their skill with chance. On a timing pass, it is a chance that the DB will miss read and break left when the receiver breaks right. The QB can't wait and see what happens. He throws not knowing for certain. A defender takes a chance when he jumps a route and anticipates where the throw is going to be. Certainly there is skill involved but it is not skill alone.
Originally Posted by: wpr
There's a huge difference between taking calculated risks and playing a game of chance. When you talk about jumping routes that comes down to the defensive back having studied game film on their opposition, knowing tendencies, and making a snap judgment effectively on what's the expected costs or gains to his decision. For instance, Tramon Williams' pick six against the Falcons this past year was a product of him recognizing the play from film study. He jumped the route, not knowing for certain he had the right read, but knowing the odds were heavily in his favor. He made a good decision which turned out to also be the right decision. He stacked the odds in his favor through his diligence in the film room and his ability to recognize key tells in Atlanta's offense. And as you've phrased it, misreading isn't even chance, it's making a mistake. It's the same thing for a quarterback and reading the defense for a timing route.
There is no analogous situation for a coin flip. You can't study film on it and make a better decision. There is no pattern to read and no way to improve your odds. It is pure chance.
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html
Born and bred a cheesehead