For the masses I present: There is no momentum.  I hope you take a few minutes to read and mull over what he says (as well as the linked study).  It's interesting.

I don't think many are arguing we should have kicked, and it was the smarter play.  We're getting lost in Burke's invective.  He has the grace of a firecracker sometimes, and while he knows the numbers, I think he does a poor job of contextualizing them (he once advocated for Justin Orr to shoot more threes).

It doesn't often matter if you were an underdog before the game, and if the coaches are looking at the odds, they need to be smacked in the head.  Han Solo, am I right?  The big question here- and a few people have rightly brought it up- is the impact of the timeout.  I'm not aware of how things change when the defense calls timeout.  I imagine that swings things a little bit in favor of the defending team.  Even with that in mind, I still favor going for it (but I certainly don't favor the play called).

Another point: Always just going off the chart and looking at what the probability tells you is not wise.  As others have said, there is context that the numbers just can't account for in the flow of a game.  You should know the numbers and strongly weigh them in your decision making, but it absolutely should not be a factor of 100%.

Thanks Dragon, that was what I was hoping to get from Burke.  I wanted to see the actual study to see what was being tested.  In this case, the limitations of the study are quite apparent, specifically related to the way momentum is defined.  From the link:



That is a fairly narrow definition of momentum.  For example, an INT at the goalline would not necessarily be included in the above, but would commonly be viewed as a potential momentum changer.  Nor would a series of events in which you score, and then hold the other team to a 3 and out be considered "momentum" for purposes of the study. 

The study also doesn't appear to take into consideration the timing of the events.  For instance, I would want to know whether the analysis would change if one looked only at events following a game tying hail mary TD, as opposed to all TDs in general.  That may not change the outcome of the analysis, but it seems reasonable to me that the data may turn out differently in the hail mary situation.

I don't disagree that momentum is thrown out there way too often by the average fan or commentator.  But that doesn't mean that it never exists in any circumstance.  Given the limitations of the study, I wouldn't say the issue is anywhere nearly as clear cut as Burke claimed.

Well, there's also an entire body of psychological research which remains very split on the matter:

http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss1/Momentum.htm

So it's not nearly as settled as you believe.

I am a qualitative researcher. I embrace the value of narrative and reflexive inquiry in enabling a thick description of the nature of things via evocation inspired by observation.

That having been said, the chief conclusion of that literature review is this:

The use of ‘non-traditional’ methods of enquiry is long overdue in this area. The advantage of using a qualitative method is that it allows an in-depth understanding of participants’ personal constructs and experiences (see Jones et al., 2002)


We are talking about sports, not culture. Sports have irrefutable and binary (unless it's soccer haha) results and, furthermore, the contribution of the supposed concept is alleged to influence these results so any examination of the presence of a direct variable by definition must engage in and apply a quantitative instrument.

Nobody cares if momentum makes a player feel better about his or her experience in the game (in this discussion which is premised upon whether or not the decision was the one most likely to lead to a winning outcome). So "non-traditional" methods are not really appropriate here.

That having been said, there is an argument to be made about a football game being itself an iteration of a larger game, which you might call the season. And that decisions made within that iteration might result in a lessened chance of winning that specific iteration but increasing the chances of winning future iterations through "motivation."

In that you might find an argument for Mike McCarthy keeping his defense on the field last night. He gave Chicago the game in order to keep his defense from committing mutiny at the embarrassment of having to commit a Gator Flop.

Tim, that's all fair.  I agree that quantitative research (if properly framed) is generally going to be more beneficial in this area than qualitative reseearch.  My only point, again, is just that this is not as open and shut a case as you suggested earlier.  It remains an open question in the minds of researchers in at least one legitimate field of study.

Your epistemological ramblings notwithstanding, the moment  Russ and Rob started saying, "Guts," my gut told me that the team would go for two and not make it.

Tim, here are a few links you might (not) find useful:

www.suite101.com/content/increase-interest-by-simplifying-your-writing-a81015

www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-simplify-your-writing-and-gain-results/

I was thinking the same thing Mike.  From personal experience in golf and basketball, I know that when I think I can do something (confidence) I'm more likely to try and more often than not, the results have been good.

Does anyone think if we were 3 and 1 rather than 1 and 3 we would be having this conversation?  Better win Saturday or we might find ourselves discussing the origin of the species.

Mathematics can be viewed in many different ways and from many different philosophical perspectives.  Some say it's a science.  Others say it's a "detached language" with its own syntax and grammar.  Some say it's a tool of science, but not a science in itself.  Etc. Etc.  However, whatever your philosophical perspective on the nature of mathematics it is quite clear that taking a mathematical perspective on an issue is staking out a specific epistemological viewpoint.