That department that you speak of is ESPN's SIG.... Is responsible for UPDATING stats. Another portion is responsible for quality insurance of those number. Basically did you add that correctly. Such as pass attempts for players, yardage, and things like that. Yes, they create their own models. But lets not make it sound like these guys work at NASA. Most of these guys add numbers together to put on the site. Lol. This has nothing to do with their qualification or what they are using in this particular model. They also are responsible for multiple sports. How many people do you think were dedicated to updating a projection model real time for that game?
Where in that have you given me any data... Besides trust ESPN's formula? Is that really how you live? To be honest I still believe the formula to be simple. Based off of score, time left in the game, and historical data of ANY two teams in those positions.
Find the data that goes into that, and Ill be happy to admit I am wrong if they are looking at specific variables. Prove me wrong not "I trust ESPN over you". I have shown you multiple articles that show going for 2 is better. Given you the numbers and truths behind that. Your only course of action is to point out ESPN calculation that you have no idea how it works. Even if it was good data, I read that article and it says NOTHING about the Packers being better favorites if they went into OT.
Here is the thing even if we say they were taking into account all of the variable factors on the fly. Including hail mary change of momentum. The offensive and defensive ranks, the coin toss, all of the percentages along with that. All of it. You would still have a better chance going for 2. There is no way that you win this conversation statistically speaking.
If you want to argue that going for two is the more accepted way... I am with you all the way.
If not give me the actually numbers... 2 point conversion rates, vs overtime success rate. Add in the teams playing with lower average defense and offense. PROVE with actual stats and numbers where you are at a greater advantage.
Another article
"Mason Crosby kicked the extra point, and it went to OT where the Packers had a shot had they gotten the ball first, but McCarthy could have taken the opportunity to steal one right there. Don't let it come down to chance. Going for two is roughly a 50-50 shot (the Packers were 5 for 9 on two-point tries the past two seasons, which is 55 percent), and it's better to have a coin-flip proposition — see what we did there — with the ball in your hands than without. They controlled the action at that moment, gave the ball away and opted to keep playing. Bad move."
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-s...-the-packers-cardinals-classic-071409392.html
And another
"I just did some quick stats on overtime results pulling games from the last 3 seasons and the results surprised me quite a bit.
Out of the 47 OT games two ended in ties. Out of the remaining 45:
-The coin toss winner won the game: 51%
-First possession TD: 18.2%
-First possession score: 34.1%
-TD for the win: 22.7%
-Home team wins: 61.4%
As the numbers clearly show the coin toss has no statistical impact and less than 20% of games end w/o both team getting possession. The only clear trend is that the home winning percentage is about 17% higher than regulation games.
Which brings us to the question of whether GB should have gone for one or two. Based on the home/away winning percentages above and 94% average conversion on PATs and 50% when going for two, GB had the following win percentages:
Going for 1 - 36%
Going for 2 - 50%
The numbers aren't even close and that's without even factoring in how anemic GB's offense looked and the fact that Cobb was injured."
And Another....
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
That is a good explanation of why 2 points are statistically better...
You can do this all day, because in math... There is NO WAY that it is better to go for 1. It is basic math.