lol it is 1 to anything, idiots. since you can't score 1 pt?
1 pt is right but how would've you like to have 5-5 in a box pool in the Cleveland /Baltimore game yesterday. 25-15. I'd like to know how many games have ended 5-5?
0
Quote Originally Posted by nooob:
lol it is 1 to anything, idiots. since you can't score 1 pt?
1 pt is right but how would've you like to have 5-5 in a box pool in the Cleveland /Baltimore game yesterday. 25-15. I'd like to know how many games have ended 5-5?
1 pt is right but how would've you like to have 5-5 in a box pool in the Cleveland /Baltimore game yesterday. 25-15. I'd like to know how many games have ended 5-5?
1points is impossible. not mathematically unlikely; it simply cant happen.
5-5 is far more likely than 4-4.
5-5 involves the offense scoring two field goals.
for 4-4 to occur, the offense need to be in a part of the field where they are able to get tackled in their own endzone on 4 separate occasions, where no team is able to score by any other means. any more than 4 points and the scoring in the game can be influenced by regular scoring plays like FGs and TDs, which are more likely than safties
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bumblebee:
1 pt is right but how would've you like to have 5-5 in a box pool in the Cleveland /Baltimore game yesterday. 25-15. I'd like to know how many games have ended 5-5?
1points is impossible. not mathematically unlikely; it simply cant happen.
5-5 is far more likely than 4-4.
5-5 involves the offense scoring two field goals.
for 4-4 to occur, the offense need to be in a part of the field where they are able to get tackled in their own endzone on 4 separate occasions, where no team is able to score by any other means. any more than 4 points and the scoring in the game can be influenced by regular scoring plays like FGs and TDs, which are more likely than safties
least amount of points without a TD (6) and FG are too "easy" compared to a safety.
Finishes in a Tie.
I thought about that but what's more unlikely. A 0-0 overtime or a 2-0 overtime?
Not sure how many points will need to be scored in a game for it to be more rare than 6-4 (OT).. Oregon showed it can score 100.. So two teams like Oregon go at it back and forth and then in college overtime and we have 100+ each.
Georgia Tech once beat Cumberland 222-0, which was also the highest scoring football game ever. We also have several teams that scored in the 100's or even 150's.
But never seen a score like 2-0, 2-2, 4-2, 4-4 or 6-4 (OT).
0
Quote Originally Posted by switchwalk:
Has to be 4-4(OT) no?
two safeties each, no scoring in overtime
least amount of points without a TD (6) and FG are too "easy" compared to a safety.
Finishes in a Tie.
I thought about that but what's more unlikely. A 0-0 overtime or a 2-0 overtime?
Not sure how many points will need to be scored in a game for it to be more rare than 6-4 (OT).. Oregon showed it can score 100.. So two teams like Oregon go at it back and forth and then in college overtime and we have 100+ each.
Georgia Tech once beat Cumberland 222-0, which was also the highest scoring football game ever. We also have several teams that scored in the 100's or even 150's.
But never seen a score like 2-0, 2-2, 4-2, 4-4 or 6-4 (OT).
While it may seem more improbable for a game to end with irrationally high scores like 100-17 than 4-4 (OT)Im trying to rationalize it with this pretty wacky logic, see if you follow;
Depending on field position, the probability of scoring any type of play dramatically changes. Obviously, you are more likely to score an offensive TD from the opponents 1 yard line, then you are to score from your own goal line. With safeties, its the same situation, however I would assume that the majority of safeties would occur from plays within 20 or so yards of your own goal line. Now, comparatively, which event is less probable:
you score a 99yard touch down; or surrender a 100yard safety?
the safety right? 99yd Touchdowns happen every year, i cant recall a single player scrambling backwards 100yards for a safety.
Would it then be rational to assume the odds of scoring a touchdown on the vast majority of plays in a football game far outweigh the odds of a safety occurring off any given play?
way more than probably.
So if its far, far, far, far, far more likely for teams to score touchdowns than safeties, we can safely assume its more likely for any team to score multiple touchdowns, than multiple safeties.Therefore, would a game with an irrational amount of touchdowns or an irrational amount of safeties, be less likely?
I say irrational amount of the less likely event; the safety.
did that make ANY sense?
0
While it may seem more improbable for a game to end with irrationally high scores like 100-17 than 4-4 (OT)Im trying to rationalize it with this pretty wacky logic, see if you follow;
Depending on field position, the probability of scoring any type of play dramatically changes. Obviously, you are more likely to score an offensive TD from the opponents 1 yard line, then you are to score from your own goal line. With safeties, its the same situation, however I would assume that the majority of safeties would occur from plays within 20 or so yards of your own goal line. Now, comparatively, which event is less probable:
you score a 99yard touch down; or surrender a 100yard safety?
the safety right? 99yd Touchdowns happen every year, i cant recall a single player scrambling backwards 100yards for a safety.
Would it then be rational to assume the odds of scoring a touchdown on the vast majority of plays in a football game far outweigh the odds of a safety occurring off any given play?
way more than probably.
So if its far, far, far, far, far more likely for teams to score touchdowns than safeties, we can safely assume its more likely for any team to score multiple touchdowns, than multiple safeties.Therefore, would a game with an irrational amount of touchdowns or an irrational amount of safeties, be less likely?
I say irrational amount of the less likely event; the safety.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.