i see your point. but as a general rule you'll win more games producing 21 or more points a game. though recent history with the chiefs would contradict that rule.

I'm not defending Herm here, but his arena league comment was meant as a joke.

Main Entry: joke

1 a : something said or done to provoke laughter; especially : a brief oral narrative with a climactic humorous twist b (1) : the humorous or ridiculous element in something (2) : an instance of jesting :

I can't believe how many of you take it as a serious statement. As I showed in a different thread last week, Herm's teams have scored over 30 and even over 40 points many times in his career as a head coach.

He was up 13-10 and sat on it late in the 4th, forcing him to punt with ample time left for Min. to score. Some killer instinct there. That's how you lose games to playoff-bound teams.

Last year we scored 21+ in 7 games, 6 of which were wins. We were 3-6 in games where we scored under 21.

The numbers still hold up. You're much better off scoring 21+.

Including this season Herm has coached 99 regular season games. His teams have put up 30+ and 40+ points at this rate:
2001: 0, 1
2002: 4, 2
2003: 2, 0
2004: 3, 1
2005: 1, 0
2006: 4, 1
2007: 0, 0

I'm off by two games somewhere, but Herm's teams have been about 29-11 at 21+ and 22-39 when under 21. Remember that most of those games were in a bad, bad AFC East. So Herm isn't immune to the formula.

In those 99 games he's scored 10 or less 28 times. As you would expect he's lost 26 of those games.

19 games of 30+ points, 28 of 10 points or less. Woot!

Herm is 4-0 when he scores 10 points in the 3rd quarter in the month of Nov. when he is on the road and it's NOT snowing.

So we know that 21 pts is about a 3-1 chance to win and seems to flip under 21.

But I wonder what the "magic number" is. What number of pts is the number where the league goes over .500?

If someone can get me the raw data so I don't have to flip pages on nfl.com while making tick marks with a pen I'll figure it out.

:)

Yeah, but then the team that beat them would have won scoring over 21 and there'd be 7 winners who'd not have won if they scored under 21. Think about it. Just sayin...

You can't just take Jacksonville's 23-14 win over Denver and say the Jaguars could have won 15-14. A different score at pretty much any point of the game could completely change the strategy.

The point is that the teams that get a lead and continue to score... you know, play to win the game... are the teams that are more likely to win. When you have so many good athletes on the field at any given time, you can't just hang in the game for 3 quarters and win it at the end. Well, maybe against the Vikings at home :rolleyes:

I certainly don't want to nitpick on an interesting thread idea, but it might be easier to understand the comparisons from week to week by listing win percentages. For example...

Week 1:
AFL : 8-2 (80%)
NFL : 8-14 (57%)

Week 2:
AFL : 10-2 (83%)
NFL : 6-14 (30%)

Week 3:
AFL : 14-7 (67%)
NFL : 1-8 (11%)

This thread is weak. Full of statistical fail. Just ask Rainman.

Done. Say, don't you work for a research company? ;)

At least it isn't full of grammatical fail (sic).

Incomplete sentences are a method of placing emphasis on a point.