Scoring First
Does anyone have any historic data linking winning percentage to scoring first? More specifically, data on the visiting team scoring first?
I ask because the first thing I told my wife on Saturday night was that Michigan needs to win the toss, take the ball, and score first. PSU fans go absolutely nuts during night games and the "white-out" atmosphere is extremely intimindating on opposing teams, if you ask me. I was adamant about Michigan scoring early and was very disheartened to see them go three-and-out. Kind of set the tone for the game, if you ask me.
Is there any reason why Michigan should not take the ball every time they win the coin toss the rest of the season? I know deferring is usually the way to go but, you know, the defense . . .
November 1st, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
November 1st, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
If only this was the magic bullet.
November 1st, 2010 at 3:55 PM ^
This is a meaningless stat. Just like "Team X is 30-2 in games where Player Y scores 18 points and grabs 7 rebounds".
Basically what is is saying is that "when good things happen, a team is more likely to win". Which we all know anyway.
November 1st, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^
I need this to mean something. If I knew that away teams rarely win if they aren't the first to score, maybe I could be less stressed watching a game like the PSU game. I can't take much more of this pain and suffering . . .
November 1st, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
First quarter against Michigan State - 3-0.
The last time Michigan led by more than seven points? BG game.
Michigan needs to score first and get up by two scores to have a chance.
I wonder if there is any historical significance to this in the RR coaching era beyond UM.
November 1st, 2010 at 5:43 PM ^
Thank you. Scoring early and often and grabbing a lead is a very meaningful stat for this team for two reasons. 1. This is a rhythm offense. We've seen what it can do when it heats up and starts scoring. It keeps scoring. 2. It has a weak defense that needs the advantage of playing against an offense that is under the gun somewhat.
If our offense starts off well, the opposing offense has way more pressure on it to keep up. That aids our defense. It influences play calling in a big way.
Our offense has all the potential in the world. Still, until it puts a good team through hell in the first half like it has done late in blowouts, it is not doing the job.
November 1st, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
might or might NOT be meaningful, but you have to ask first. Scoring buoys the confidence, for ex., so maybe teams play better from there on out. On the other hand, I have watched a lot of games where a team--with a group of scripted plays--scores and then goes cold. Last week someone also mentioned that the team that receives has longer TOP; not sure why that should NECESSARILY be the case, esp. not for more than a half. But if it WERE true that might also contribute to the success that does/does not come with scoring first.
November 1st, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
I've always thought that this team especially needs to score early. The key to winning for Michigan right now seems to be that we have to score early. This team is very dangerous to anyone when we play with the lead. We can slug it out offensively with the best of them, but the team is best when the offense is in rhythm, has the full playbook open to them because time is not an issue, and can dictate the tempo of the game.
I know that sounds like a bunch of meaningless garbage (which team doesn't win most of their games where they are winning?), but it seems obvious that the offense is pressing to catch up even early in games. The last 3 opposing teams have either scored first, or taken the lead quickly, and never looked back.