This is a flawed an unnecessary statistical analysis on multiple levels and is fraught with misleading errors. Not that the basic premise is wrong, but it just galls me.
http://gridironnow.com/4-sec-football-scoring-stats/
Didn't see a discussion about this. It highlights four things:
1. How scoring above 30 improves winning percentage.
Common sense ought to indicate this. A recent analysis showed that the teams that won national titles in the last 25 years have an AVERAGE DEFENSIVE OVERALL RANKING of 9.66.......in other words, the teams to win national titles among the TEN BEST in the nation every single year when looked at as an average.
And that number is dramatically skewed by one team, 2010 Auburn, whose 53rd ranked defense was the second-worst in history to win a national title. That Auburn team surrendered 24.1 ppg.
Obviously, if you score 30, you beat 24. And if you beat the worst defense you SHOULD be able (all things being equal) to beat the best.
2. It also shows scoring between 20-29 points drastically reduces winning %, but take a wild guess who has a better record in this department than anybody else???:wink:
Well, there's a MAJOR difference in scoring 20 and scoring 30 but there's not a major one between 30 and 29; I'd be interested in seeing the numbers by integer - in other words, what does your percent decrease per point. Does it drop 1% at 29 for example?
3. It also highlights that when you hold an opponent under 24 points your going to win more games.
Auburn's 2010 awful defense gave up 24.1 ppg and won it all. But you can't count on that. Go look at their high-wire act all season that year.
4. The fourth is winning close games (under 7 points) and guess who is far and away the best (luckiest) at doing so? :wink:
Hey, numbers don't lie!:BigA:
But you'd have to analyze how many games that ended within seven points were actually games, too. For example, if you look at the score of Super Bowl XXVI, you see Washington beat Buffalo, 37-24, and you imagine "must have been a pretty good game."
Of course, Washington led 37-10 in the fourth.......
As far as lucky, while nobody should deny Ricardo Louis's Prayer at Jordan-Hare catch was just plain luck, maybe it's that they play in a lot of close games because they respond well to pressure and don't give up.
Stallings' Tide teams didn't exactly set the world on fire in terms of points won by. In 1991, the Tide was five plays from being 6-6 and somehow went 11-1. In 92, we only led La Tech, 6-0, in the fourth and our only TD was on a punt return. We led Tulane, 6-0, at the half. And we were tied with 5-5 Auburn, 0-0, at the half, too.
In 1994, we won EIGHT GAMES we trailed in the fourth quarter, most of them close.
So let's not dismiss them just because it's Auburn.