Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mradtke66" data-source="post: 466848" data-attributes="member: 4199">The problem with "observation and experience" is selection bias. Humans are terrible at being objective without some rigor. We see patterns where there aren't any and exclude evidence that doesn't fit our narrative. You say the fake was risky--why? How likely was the play to work? Presume we have a sheet in front of us that says the down and distance, everything about that play, has a 99% chance of success. With 99% certainty, would you call the fake? If not, what level of certainly do you require before you do call the fake? What is your reasoning? Now, an obviously small sample size, but consider not punting at all: <a href="http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888" target="_blank">http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=892888</a></blockquote>

Total: 562 (members: 1, guests: 561)