This issue has been discussed ad nauseum. Certain posters, myself included, think that our offense performance against Wisconsin was not as impressive as the numbers indicate, since we were shut out in the first half and only put up points when we were already down by 21. Others, including our illustrious leader, think the above position is idiotic, as obviously Wisconsin was not easing up on us. In his most recent post, Brian mocked those of us in group 1 for just going with our "feelings, man" instead of presenting any hard data.
But, unless I'm missing something, I've never seen any "hard data" supporting the second theory, either. Instead of just dismissing the opposing argument as an unsupported "gut feeling," shouldn't people claiming that it's just as hard to score when you're down by 21 as when you're tied actually present some data to that effect?
I believe in statistics. I'm not some cantankerous Murray Chass who believes that my gut feeling is more important than newfangled math. At the same time, I acknowledge my limitations -- I wouldn't know where to begin in gathering the data to demonstrate whether or not defenses "let up" when they're up big. (If I did, this would be a diary, rather than a board entry). But I would love to know whom advanced statistics actually support in this area, rather than simply being talked down to by people who claim I don't understand math, but don't present any numbers in their argument. Anyone aware of any actual statistical analysis in this area that addresses the question at hand?