There's one at Sportsline.com as well: Schottenheimer's style not fit to Chargers personnel. Clark Judge is usually pretty perceptive about the Chargers, and I think he's got it right in that article.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
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!
Marty Schottenheimer is one of the top 10 coaches in the NFL (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter SSOG
- Start date
dgreen
Footballguy
Giants, Patriots, and...?It is what it is said:
Giants, Patriots, Jets, and...?
Parcells has 5 in 18 seasons.Gibbs has 5 in 14 seasons.And, he tied for one? Are you talking about 1985? Dallas won the division that year based on tiebreakers. Dallas, NY, and Washington were all 10-6.
Advantage - Gibbs
Advantage - GibbsUnless, you are one to discount the strike SBs, which I'll never understand.
Okay, so let's remove year one from his first year with NYG, NE, NYJ, and DAL. Parcells then has a 136-87 record (0.609). Gibbs still wins at 140-76 (0.648) and I'm not even removing Gibbs' first years in 1981 and 2004.
I've already admitted that this, along with success with multiple franchises, are Parcell's ONLY advantages over Gibbs. Repeating it won't help the case for Parcells. Anyways, would you really take Parcells because of this? Even if they are in the same division, you'd take this advantage in two games and sacrifice Gibbs' superiority in the other 14 games, not to mention his superiority in the postseason?
It is if people are calling for your head.The Chargers could do a heck of a lot worse than Schottenheimer, but it'd be pretty hard for them to do better.
Strongly disagreed. Was Miami a better team than New England in 2004 when the Dolphins beat the Patriots? I mean, sure, the Dolphins were 4-12 and the Patriots were 14-2, but clearly the Dolphins must have been the better team, since they won, right?If you disagree with that statement for even a *SECOND*, then you have just acknowledged that sometimes in the NFL, the worse team wins.H.K. said:
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It is what it is, if head-to-head record is oh so important when comparing head coaches, can I assume you would say that Shanahan is a better head coach than Belichick, despite having 1 less Super Bowl win, because of his dominance of him in the regular season (4-1) and having won their only playoff matchup? Just curious...
Also, saying this:
"When comparing Parcells and Gibbs records, one must remember that Parcells has taken over 3 teams (NE, NYJets, Dallas) that were among the worst teams in the NFL, when Parcells took over and righted the ship."
is silly. I am sure there are plenty of other great head coaches in the NFL would could have turned around multiple franchises, but the really great ones (Shanahan, Cowher, Gibbs, etc.) prefer to stay with one team rather than bail on a team after a couple of years and then join another, just so they can pad their resume by adding another number to the amount of franchises they have turned around.
Also, saying this:
"When comparing Parcells and Gibbs records, one must remember that Parcells has taken over 3 teams (NE, NYJets, Dallas) that were among the worst teams in the NFL, when Parcells took over and righted the ship."
is silly. I am sure there are plenty of other great head coaches in the NFL would could have turned around multiple franchises, but the really great ones (Shanahan, Cowher, Gibbs, etc.) prefer to stay with one team rather than bail on a team after a couple of years and then join another, just so they can pad their resume by adding another number to the amount of franchises they have turned around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
I bet **** Vermiel could win a super bowl with the Chargers' current roster and staff. The only trick would be getting him out of retirement - again.Marty does have a very lengthy, good, proven track record. With no super bowl appearances. There's reasons for both, and expecting that to change at this point in his career - well maybe stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The Chargers may indeed do worse than Marty, but if he doesn't get out of the way and take some risks, they have to try and do better than him or they will not get the big prize.
There is a reason for both. The reason for the first is because he's a good coach. The reason for the second is John Elway.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
John Elway's been retired for how long now? And how many other seasons/playoff runs of Marty's were directly ended by Elway? Sorry boss, Marty's been doing it for way too long to chalk his lack of championship appearances over the entire stretch of his pro coaching career up to one player or a bad break. He doesn't go to the dance because he doesn't have the cojones to risk getting rejected by the pretty girl (double digit leads in this awful analogy). If you want us to accept that he's a good coach based on his lengthy career, you have to accept that he's not a great one on the same basis, had he been he'd have seen a super bowl or two in his time somehow someway, plain and simple.
Only if you define the best team as the one which wins the super bowl. On any given day a worse team can beat a better team. 1 game is not a reliable sample size.
H.K.
Footballguy
:whoosh: 1) The best team does win the Super Bowl. The rules are the same for everyone else, each team must qualify to get in the playoffs and win to advance, until finally, they win the last game. Every other team in the league had the exact same challenge in fornt of them and only one could do it. That is what makes them the best.
2) In your mind and probably others, the lesser of two teams may win on occasion, however, maybe everyone's perception was off on who was better to begin with and the best team actually did win.
3) One game is a reliable sample size because its a lose and go home format. Each team faces elimination every round, so it truly reveals who is the best under the most trying circumstances.
dgreen
Footballguy
Gibbs has more than just two advantages. See below.It is what it is said:
One more SB isn't a big number difference? Well then, why doesn't Parcells just go ahead and get himself another one if it's so easy?
Arguable? Are you serious?
Good grief, how many seasons do you want to remove?
And, oddly enough, it would help your argument despite being a completely ridiculous thing to do.
So, Gibbs still better? Okay.Oh, and I hope you notice you are now doing a comparison without removing any of Gibbs' seasons. How convenient.
Loaded with talent? Ever notice how Gibbs' players haven't exactly been recognized with many rewards?
Are you really just going to repeat the same two advantages over and over and over and over and over and over?
Yeah, just one more SB. I mean, anyone can get that. Parcells could have like 50 by now if he wanted to.Regular SeasonGibbs: 0.645Parcells: 0.571But, feel free to remove all of Bill's losses so he can have a better record and help your case.PostseasonGibbs: 0.739Parcells: 0.611Super BowlsGibbs: 3-1Parcells: 2-1Championship GamesGibbs: 4-1Parcells: 3-1Winning SeasonsGibbs: 11/14Parcells: 12/18Again, feel free to remove Bill's bad seasons to make that number what you want.Losing SeasonsGibbs: 2/12Parcells: 5/18Playoff AppearencesGibbs: 9/14Parcells: 9/18Gibbs has won at least one playoff game in 8 of those 9 seasons. Parcells in 6 of 9.But, hey, Parcells does win HTH and has had success with multiple franchises. Seriously, you have to be
here.
Not true, even a respected statistician like Doug would admit there is no formula for "heart", dedication, and teamwork. A "poor sport" would say a team won because they were lucky. The best team is the one that wins.
It doesn't matter how long Elway had been retired. If you put someone other than Elway back there for the Broncos, Schottenheimer has a superbowl appearance. Personally, I don't think that would have made him any better or worse of a head coach, it's just an observation.Schotty also went 13-3 and had home-field advantage with KC in 1997 only to lose again to eventual-SB-champion Denver (QB'd by John Elway). They'd have had a pretty good shot at the SB that year, too, if it weren't for Elway.
I do accept the fact that Schottenheimer is a pretty bad playoff coach. I never tried to dispute that. I think a large reason why he is such a bad playoff coach, comparatively, is because he gets his teams to overachieve by so much that a lot of them had no business being in the playoffs in the first place.
Shanny's 7-2 against Belichick, lifetime. Also, I doubt you've seen Belichick outcoach Shanahan before. Sure, there was the intentional safety game, but it's not like Shanahan coached Deltha O'Neil to muff the kickoff, Lelie to drop the ball, and O'Neil to stop covering his man. If you "outcoach" someone, you don't win a nailbiter against an inferior team starting its backup QB.It is what it is said:
Again, I suppose 4-12 Miami was a better team than 14-2 New England, since they beat them, right?Sometimes, the worse team wins. If that wasn't the case, then the best team in football would go 19-0 every single year. Or are you arguing that the worse team can win in the regular season, but then there's some magical quality about the playoffs that ensure that the best team wins every time?
And what about the Giants/Niners game in 2002? San Francisco won the game, but the league actually came out and said that the only reason they won was because the officials screwed up several times during the course of the game, clearly and undisputably taking a Giants victory and turning it into a 49er victory. Was San Francisco the better team that week? Or was New York the better team, because they actually REALLY won the game, but had the refs take it away? And if New York was the better team, then doesn't that prove that the better team sometimes loses, even in the playoffs? And what about Buffalo? If Norwood's kick was a couple of feet to the right, would Buffalo have been the better team, but because it was too far to the left, they were the worse team? Please Bri, I'm dying to know here.
Miami game not ringing a bellSan Fran-GMen. The league said errors were made. Tags is/was not in the business of saying if this penalty wasn't called then this would have happenned. That's for miss cleo. You(and most people) add in that last "would have won" part.All in all, I think when you say worse team you are referring to your outlook or season record or somesuch. When I say best team I mean best team for those few hours when the game is played. If you think assembling talent alone wins then your name might be Dan SnyderAgain, I suppose 4-12 Miami was a better team than 14-2 New England, since they beat them, right?Sometimes, the worse team wins. If that wasn't the case, then the best team in football would go 19-0 every single year. Or are you arguing that the worse team can win in the regular season, but then there's some magical quality about the playoffs that ensure that the best team wins every time?And what about the Giants/Niners game in 2002? San Francisco won the game, but the league actually came out and said that the only reason they won was because the officials screwed up several times during the course of the game, clearly and undisputably taking a Giants victory and turning it into a 49er victory. Was San Francisco the better team that week? Or was New York the better team, because they actually REALLY won the game, but had the refs take it away? And if New York was the better team, then doesn't that prove that the better team sometimes loses, even in the playoffs? And what about Buffalo? If Norwood's kick was a couple of feet to the right, would Buffalo have been the better team, but because it was too far to the left, they were the worse team? Please Bri, I'm dying to know here.
I believe your boy likes to use boxing analogies and calls the playoffs a three round fight and such so he might not say the best team won but would he say the best boxer won? I don't know I'm not looking up quotes, doesn't matter, for some reason Shanny likes boxing analogies.
Actually, no, if I'm recalling correctly, there was no speculation involved. If a penalty had been called correctly, the game would have ended with a Giants victory, but since it was called incorrectly, the game continued and the 49ers won. Something about a tackle eligible and illegal man downfield penalty. Still, let's reduce this down to a very simple hypothetical for you. Let's say Team A is up by 1 with the ball with less than 2 minutes left in the game, and it's 3rd and 3. If they get a first down, they can kill the clock with kneeldowns. Team A converts, but is whistled for an illegal man downfield penalty because one of the offensive linemen was in a pass pattern. Team B gets the ball back after the punt, marches down the field, and scores. Now, if in retrospect, that illegal man downfield penalty was called on a tackle-eligible player, that penalty absolutely and unequivocably cost Team A the game. They should have had the lead and been able to kill the clock with kneel downs, and instead they lost. In that instance, which team is the better team? I mean, if the better team *ALWAYS* wins, is Team B the better team? Or is Team A the better team because they *ACTUALLY* won but got jobbed by the refs? Is this a case where the better team does, in fact, lose?Edit: March Madness is similar to the NFL playoffs in that they're both one-and-done events. The coach of the college basketball national champions this year, Billy Donovan, has said several times that Florida wasn't the best team in the tournament, and that the best team very rarely wins it all. I figure he'd know better than I would, at any rate.Miami game not ringing a bellSan Fran-GMen. The league said errors were made. Tags is/was not in the business of saying if this penalty wasn't called then this would have happenned. That's for miss cleo. You(and most people) add in that last "would have won" part.Again, I suppose 4-12 Miami was a better team than 14-2 New England, since they beat them, right?Sometimes, the worse team wins. If that wasn't the case, then the best team in football would go 19-0 every single year. Or are you arguing that the worse team can win in the regular season, but then there's some magical quality about the playoffs that ensure that the best team wins every time?And what about the Giants/Niners game in 2002? San Francisco won the game, but the league actually came out and said that the only reason they won was because the officials screwed up several times during the course of the game, clearly and undisputably taking a Giants victory and turning it into a 49er victory. Was San Francisco the better team that week? Or was New York the better team, because they actually REALLY won the game, but had the refs take it away? And if New York was the better team, then doesn't that prove that the better team sometimes loses, even in the playoffs? And what about Buffalo? If Norwood's kick was a couple of feet to the right, would Buffalo have been the better team, but because it was too far to the left, they were the worse team? Please Bri, I'm dying to know here.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
C'mon MT, you're better than that. Posting the results programmed by a simulator has nothing to do with real NFL games. However, it proves my point: Just because you or the media or a computer program says one team is better means nothing, they still must prove it on the field. That's all that matters.
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
What if Team A scored every time they had the ball and did not allow Team B to gain a yard? Play what if scenarios all you want. Losers blame others, winners find a way.Actually, no, if I'm recalling correctly, there was no speculation involved. If a penalty had been called correctly, the game would have ended with a Giants victory, but since it was called incorrectly, the game continued and the 49ers won. Something about a tackle eligible and illegal man downfield penalty. Still, let's reduce this down to a very simple hypothetical for you. Let's say Team A is up by 1 with the ball with less than 2 minutes left in the game, and it's 3rd and 3. If they get a first down, they can kill the clock with kneeldowns. Team A converts, but is whistled for an illegal man downfield penalty because one of the offensive linemen was in a pass pattern. Team B gets the ball back after the punt, marches down the field, and scores. Now, if in retrospect, that illegal man downfield penalty was called on a tackle-eligible player, that penalty absolutely and unequivocably cost Team A the game. They should have had the lead and been able to kill the clock with kneel downs, and instead they lost. In that instance, which team is the better team? I mean, if the better team *ALWAYS* wins, is Team B the better team? Or is Team A the better team because they *ACTUALLY* won but got jobbed by the refs? Is this a case where the better team does, in fact, lose?Miami game not ringing a bellSan Fran-GMen. The league said errors were made. Tags is/was not in the business of saying if this penalty wasn't called then this would have happenned. That's for miss cleo. You(and most people) add in that last "would have won" part.Again, I suppose 4-12 Miami was a better team than 14-2 New England, since they beat them, right?Sometimes, the worse team wins. If that wasn't the case, then the best team in football would go 19-0 every single year. Or are you arguing that the worse team can win in the regular season, but then there's some magical quality about the playoffs that ensure that the best team wins every time?And what about the Giants/Niners game in 2002? San Francisco won the game, but the league actually came out and said that the only reason they won was because the officials screwed up several times during the course of the game, clearly and undisputably taking a Giants victory and turning it into a 49er victory. Was San Francisco the better team that week? Or was New York the better team, because they actually REALLY won the game, but had the refs take it away? And if New York was the better team, then doesn't that prove that the better team sometimes loses, even in the playoffs? And what about Buffalo? If Norwood's kick was a couple of feet to the right, would Buffalo have been the better team, but because it was too far to the left, they were the worse team? Please Bri, I'm dying to know here.
This makes no sense. One game is not a reliable sample size to determine which team is best.Consider team A, who is an 80% favorite in each of it's 3 playoff games. 80% is a huge favorite, yet this juggernaut will be eliminated fairly often:1-(.8^3)=.488 or 48.8%Under your definition of "best", they will arbitrarily be the best team 51.2% of the time and the other 48.8% of the time they will not be the best team. The source of your error is that you believe that the result of any given game is due wholly to the abilities of the two teams who played, while in reality the result is a combination of skill and luck.
H.K.
Footballguy
Please define "favorite". You know that point spreads are simply a way to get the public to bet evenly on both sides of a game, so its based on nothing other than perception. Also, please define "luck"....Is luck losing because a bomb thrown to a wide open receiver hits a bird mid flight and get picked off? What is this "luck" that you speak of? If a team is truly superior, they'll win by a comfortable margin and "luck" will not be a factor.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Dave Wannstedt beat Tony Dungy 41-0 in their only playoff matchup ever. Is Wannstedt a better coach as a result? You can talk about equal value all you want, but often times, it is all a matter of when teams just happen to be matched up against each other. One could say that Parcells' teams weren't good enough to get far enough to play Gibbs' Redskins the years Washington was a much better team than whatever team Parcells happened to be coaching that year, otherwise Gibbs might have a few postseason wins over him.It is what it is said:
Shanny is 5-1 vs. Belichick, with one of those being a playoff win, which you have deemed to be of the utmost importance when comparing coaches of equal value. He has more wins as a head coach, only one less Super Bowl win (like Parcells does in comparison to Gibbs). So, using your logic, why wouldn't you argue that Shanny is better than Belichick?It is what it is said:
The reasons are irrelevant. The bottom line is Parcells bounces from team to team. And just think, Parcells might have gotten a third Super Bowl in '96 if he hadn't spent two weeks talking about how he was leaving New England, and instead, spent it better preparing his team for the game.It is what it is said:
dgreen said:Regular SeasonGibbs: 0.645Parcells: 0.571But, feel free to remove all of Bill's losses so he can have a better record and help your case.PostseasonGibbs: 0.739Parcells: 0.611Super BowlsGibbs: 3-1Parcells: 2-1Championship GamesGibbs: 4-1Parcells: 3-1Winning SeasonsGibbs: 11/14Parcells: 12/18Again, feel free to remove Bill's bad seasons to make that number what you want.Losing SeasonsGibbs: 2/12Parcells: 5/18Playoff AppearencesGibbs: 9/14Parcells: 9/18Gibbs has won at least one playoff game in 8 of those 9 seasons. Parcells in 6 of 9.But, hey, Parcells does win HTH and has had success with multiple franchises. Seriously, you have to be
Last edited by a moderator:
Believe what you want to. This is like trying to explain the theory of evolution to a fundamentalist christian.You know nothing about how point spreads are calculated, btw. Public perception is only a small determinant in the final line. Complex mathematical formulae are used to calculate the likely outcome of the game and then a point spread is assigned that is in line with the probability of each team winning the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus
Footballguy
That's funny, I thought the point spread was calculated so as to maximize the amount of money that came down on both sides - I guess that would in some way be related to the probability of each team winning, but I'd have to think other factors would come into play there as well.ETA: Trying to get back on topic, Marty needs to get out of the Chargers' way or they're going to be a big disappointment this year. Marty - FREE PHILY!
Last edited by a moderator:
H.K.
Footballguy
The purpose of gambling lines are soley to get even money on both sides of the number so regardless of outcome, the house gets the vig. How a number is arrived at doesn't matter. Lines move if one side gets too overloaded anyway, because it mitigates the risk for the house. I guess the difference between us is I look at results and you look at the process. Hence I weigh championships more highly than regular season success. Obviously NFL owners share the same philosophy because coaches with good regular seasons and poor playoff results are fired more often than those that barely make the playoffs and then go on deep playoff runs or even win it all. Yet you perceive me and the owners as being wrong. Makes sense.
From Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_betting#BookmakingMost people believe that bookmakers attempt to "balance" their action, by adjusting their prices so that they get the same amount of money on both sides of a game. Theoretically, the bookmaker's only financial interest in the bets it accepts is the vigorish it takes from losing wagers, and it simply wants to ensure that the amount of wagers on each side is equal. In reality, however, bookmakers attempt to maximize their bottom line. While having an exactly equal amount of money wagered on each contestant would guarantee themselves a profit and eliminate their risk, that won't necessarily maximize their bottom line.They can make more money when they accept bets at odds which are "inflated" from those which are likely to occur. So for example, if the majority of their customers are going to bet on a team regardless of the price, they will set the price as high as possible.
Strictly speaking, the goal of the bookmaker is to earn as much money as possible on a given bet. The lines have a reasonably high correlation to the sportsbook's predicted outcome of the game. They will sometimes shade lines in the direction of the betting public. If everyone is betting Dallas -4.5, they will move the line to Dallas -5.0 because that increases their EV.
You are attributing this argument to me, but nowhere did I talk about coaching comparison The only thing I argued about was the idea that a single game is a reliable indicator of which of two teams is better.I guess the difference between us is I look at results and you look at the process. Hence I weigh championships more highly than regular season success. Obviously NFL owners share the same philosophy because coaches with good regular seasons and poor playoff results are fired more often than those that barely make the playoffs and then go on deep playoff runs or even win it all. Yet you perceive me and the owners as being wrong. Makes sense.
H.K.
Footballguy
Which, again, is where you are wrong. Teams only get one game to win in the playoffs, or they go home, so that one game is all that matters. The hypothetical "better" team can win on your Xbox 100 times in a row, but when the real game is played, stats go out the window, so do seeds and favorites. All that matters is who wins, which is the better team on that day. It does not matter if the hypothetical better team would normally have won (in your mind as you perceived it prior to the game), all that matters is who actually won. Bud Grant and Marv Levy were exceptional coaches, but they will always take a back seat to guys like Walsh, Landry, Shula, etc. because those guys won titles.You are attributing this argument to me, but nowhere did I talk about coaching comparison The only thing I argued about was the idea that a single game is a reliable indicator of which of two teams is better.I guess the difference between us is I look at results and you look at the process. Hence I weigh championships more highly than regular season success. Obviously NFL owners share the same philosophy because coaches with good regular seasons and poor playoff results are fired more often than those that barely make the playoffs and then go on deep playoff runs or even win it all. Yet you perceive me and the owners as being wrong. Makes sense.
Your argument:Two teams engage in a coin flipping competition. Team A chooses heads and the coin is heads, so he wins. Team A was the better coin flipper since he won.My argument:Two teams engage in a coin flipping competition. Team A chooses heads and the coin is heads, so he wins. Team A is not a better coin flipper just because the outcome of the game favored him. He was expected to win 50% of the time.This is my last post in this thread. Nowhere have you made any logical points and I debunked your amateurish ideas about Sports Betting.
H.K.
Footballguy
In your mind a sample size of one is too small. In reality a sample size of one is all that matters.The Jets won Super Bowl III 100% of the time. They were the better team.You proved I was accurate on my assessment of sports betting BTW. While a sports book may not get a pure 50/50 split on each side of a contest, they are not going to open themselves to undo exposure. See the 1979 Super Bowl for details.
SSOG,I don't know. You've reduced all NFL games in history to this one instance(which may or may not have ever happenned). Long day man, I don't know.What if Team A scored every time they had the ball and did not allow Team B to gain a yard? Play what if scenarios all you want. Losers blame others, winners find a way.Actually, no, if I'm recalling correctly, there was no speculation involved. If a penalty had been called correctly, the game would have ended with a Giants victory, but since it was called incorrectly, the game continued and the 49ers won. Something about a tackle eligible and illegal man downfield penalty. Still, let's reduce this down to a very simple hypothetical for you. Let's say Team A is up by 1 with the ball with less than 2 minutes left in the game, and it's 3rd and 3. If they get a first down, they can kill the clock with kneeldowns. Team A converts, but is whistled for an illegal man downfield penalty because one of the offensive linemen was in a pass pattern. Team B gets the ball back after the punt, marches down the field, and scores. Now, if in retrospect, that illegal man downfield penalty was called on a tackle-eligible player, that penalty absolutely and unequivocably cost Team A the game. They should have had the lead and been able to kill the clock with kneel downs, and instead they lost. In that instance, which team is the better team? I mean, if the better team *ALWAYS* wins, is Team B the better team? Or is Team A the better team because they *ACTUALLY* won but got jobbed by the refs? Is this a case where the better team does, in fact, lose?Miami game not ringing a bellSan Fran-GMen. The league said errors were made. Tags is/was not in the business of saying if this penalty wasn't called then this would have happenned. That's for miss cleo. You(and most people) add in that last "would have won" part.Again, I suppose 4-12 Miami was a better team than 14-2 New England, since they beat them, right?Sometimes, the worse team wins. If that wasn't the case, then the best team in football would go 19-0 every single year. Or are you arguing that the worse team can win in the regular season, but then there's some magical quality about the playoffs that ensure that the best team wins every time?And what about the Giants/Niners game in 2002? San Francisco won the game, but the league actually came out and said that the only reason they won was because the officials screwed up several times during the course of the game, clearly and undisputably taking a Giants victory and turning it into a 49er victory. Was San Francisco the better team that week? Or was New York the better team, because they actually REALLY won the game, but had the refs take it away? And if New York was the better team, then doesn't that prove that the better team sometimes loses, even in the playoffs? And what about Buffalo? If Norwood's kick was a couple of feet to the right, would Buffalo have been the better team, but because it was too far to the left, they were the worse team? Please Bri, I'm dying to know here.
Even if that way is being handed the game by the officials contrary to the rules of football?I was just asking a question here. In that hypothetical situation, which team was the better team? The one that *ACTUALLY* won the game, or the one that was handed the game by the officials? You never did answer.Oh, and another question... if the better team always wins, how come nobody's ever gone 19-0 before?
Well, very few games are ever won by a comfortable margin, so it seems that no team is ever clearly the better team. Is that what you're trying to argue?First you're saying that the better team always wins. Then you're saying that if a team is clearly better, it would win by a comfortable margin. Which is it?
Wow. Just wow. He didn't "prove you were accurate" in your assessment of sports betting. He proved that you were way off the mark. How any sane or logical human being could read what he posted and come to the conclusion that he had just proven your point is beyond me entirely.As for the sample size of one issue... a sample size of one is ALWAYS too small. Ask Billy Donovan, a championship-winning coach who probably knows a heck-of-a-lot more about 1-and-done formats than you or I do. He says that the best team usually doesn't win it all, and that if you replayed the NCAA Tourney 5 times you'd likely get 5 different winners. He said this *AFTER HE HAD JUST WON*. I'm going to assume that he knows what he's talking about here.H.K. said:In your mind a sample size of one is too small. In reality a sample size of one is all that matters.The Jets won Super Bowl III 100% of the time. They were the better team.You proved I was accurate on my assessment of sports betting BTW. While a sports book may not get a pure 50/50 split on each side of a contest, they are not going to open themselves to undo exposure. See the 1979 Super Bowl for details.sterjs said:
Luck is all over the place. It affects pretty much everything. I like Barry Greenstein's chapter on this, so I'll quote a few paragraphs.
Football games can turn on a lot more than just how good the teams are. Maybe the outcome of the game is decided by a blown call by the referee, who is distracted because he got into an argument with his wife that morning because an ex girlfriend had stumbled upon his MySpace page after fortuitously blah blah blah. It's not skill to irk the ref's wife. It's luck. Luck affects nearly every aspect of every football game. There are obvious effects like the wind changing direction after a ball is kicked, or the direction a fumbled ball takes when it bounces, and there are non-obvious effects like the MySpace thing. But there is luck everywhere.The better team does not always win. A 4-1 favorite will win about 80% of the time, not 100%.
Hairy Snowman
Footballguy
H.K.
Footballguy
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
Here's the question though - while I believe this is true (and found it very interesting as it debunked some theories I had about oddsmaking) - why would the line ever move, then? By moving the line, the sportsbook is exposing themselves to getting pounded if the final margin of victory falls between the initial line and the adjusted one, as they have to pay out heavy action on both sides. So, if this were always the case, why would the line ever move? If they were comfortable with their number, wouldn't it remain constant regardless? Or do they move it (or add odds, i.e. +3 / +105) if the action becomes too imbalanced?
H.K.
Footballguy
They can get hammered if they move it and money goes to the winning side on both ends. In 1979 Pittsburgh and the Rams locked up in a high scoring game. This game opened as Pittsburgh a 3.5 point favorite, went to 4, and closed at 4.5. The Steelers ended up winning this game 35-31 so the game landed right in the middle and sportsbooks lost millions. It is still remembered to this day as the worst Sunday in history for sportsbooks around the world.
Comprehension isn't down.You claimed that the line wasn't predictive of the game, it was Las Vegas's attempt to equalize money on both sides. Two posters came in and officially *****slapped that notion (that the line is designed to equalize money on both sides). That pretty thoroughly disproves what you were talking about.
Evilgrin 72
Distributor of Pain
That's what I'm saying. If a sportsbook sets a line bacause they believe it presents the greatest value to them in terms of net gains, why would they ever move it and expose themselves to such a loss? You'd think the lines would always remain static. The only benefit to moving a line is to balance the action.
H.K.
Footballguy
Context is the key. I was discussing ONE game (remember sample size discussion?) i.e.- the Super Bowl. When multiple games are produced by the sports book, the lines are more flexible due to diversification. This is risk mitigation, and I addressed it in my initial post as well.
H.K.
Footballguy
The likelihood of the outcome splittling the difference is probably pretty remote, so the book moves the line in the hopes it doesn't happen.
dgreen
Footballguy
H.K.
Footballguy
Great, now go petition the NFL and get them to change the results of the game because you feel the better team lost. Let me know how that goes, OK?
What? When did I ever say that the game shouldn't count because the better team lost? You're creating straw-man arguements here.Here's a very simple fact for you. Every year, one team is the best team in the NFL. Outside of 1972, no team has ever gone undefeated. Simple logic then clearly shows that the best team loses every year (except for 1972). By definition, the BEST team in the league is better than all of the other teams, including the one that beats it... so every single season outside of 1972 there has been a game where, by definition, the better team lost. If you accept both premises as true (that one team is the best, and that only the 1972 Dolphins have gone undefeated), then you have to accept the conclusion that I have drawn as simple, logical, and indisputable fact.
Similar threads
