Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Rehashing The "Stress Test" Of The Football Prediction Model Discussed Earlier Via The 2014 Superbowl.

The methodology or variable weighting per se, that was discussed in an earlier post was perhaps somewhat vindicated by this most recent of Superbowls per se.


With a little bit of research, it was possible to come up with the following perspectives on both sides strengths and weaknesses.

(via the following sources)

Seahawks O vs Broncos D;

Seahawks D vs Boncos O;


From these reports we could see that the Broncos were preferred in so far as their ability to "run up the middle" per se was concerned, while there we doubts as to whether they might be able to contain outside to immediately off of the line offensive plays by the Seahawks per se.


Commentators per se chose the Broncos over the Seahawks for a variety of factors. One is perhaps this belief that being able to make short yardage consistently with "up the middle runs" was valuable, while simultaneously citing that the Seahawks had yet to play a lot of really strong teams per se like the Broncos.


This is valuable perhaps in so far as that this other-consensus building perspective may allow others using the methodology discussed earlier to receive higher yield, as in more skewed odds if this approach runs counter to the "dominant narratives" concerning the prediction of football games.


This game would have been a Seahawks victory based on the aforementioned variable weightings per se, because the outside, quick short pass offense per se was seen as more valuable according to the methodology discussed earlier as opposed to the "short run game" which was discussed as being almost negative per se according to the insights gone over earlier.


Perhaps this can all be summarized in the strength of a "west-cost-offense" per se, and the sagacity of coaches who can build them into their team effectively per se, or perhaps its just another random toss up, as any situation involving unknown variables can at times turn out to be.


Either way, hopefully everyone got what they wanted out of the game perse, and certainly even though the Broncos per se lost, they were clearly a good football team to have been contenders, in the Superbowl. So, perhaps the Superbowl is a game unlike other football games, where essentially presence may mean a certain sort of victory to a certain extent, and surely both teams and their various auxiliary staff etc tried hard to get to where they were, and presumably profited mightily from the experience in one way or another.


Thanks again for reading, and hopefully this football-outcome modeling per se has been fun for others aswell, and perhaps this model should be further tested in the future with periodic updates per se, before games since its perhaps always easy to come in after the fact per se.


Further notes from the game's "play-by-play" that support aformetioned approach to football-game-prediction.;


Seattle only really began emphasizing the running game in the third-quarter, arguably to waste time, that first run-emphatic series resulted in a "punt",or giving up of possion per se;


Seattle ball at their own 8 yard line.

1st and 10: Marshawn Lynch cut back up the field for a big gain of 18 yards.
1st and 10: Lynch ran into a Denver linebacker after no gain to the left side.
2nd and 10: A play-action pass turned into a Russell Wilson scramble for a long gain but the play was nullified by a holding penalty on Seattle. That's 10 yards in the other direction.
2nd and 20: Robert Turbin came in at running back and got a carry, crashing up the middle for a gain of three.
3rd and 17: A quick screen out to Golden Tate went for no gain to force a punt.
4th and 17: The punt was a line driver picked up by Eric Decker, who gained some positive yardage.


Though Denver as early as the second quarter started pulling away from a run-centric approach, the final realization that this was a non-yielding method of play finally came to fruition in the 3rd quarter in which their only touchdown was the culmination of several short passes as described below(same source);("Seattle is giving up little chunks of yards")(to short passes)

Denver - 0
Seattle - 36

The kickoff was a touchback.

Denver ball on their own 20 yard line.

1st and 10: Manning found Ball out of the backfield but there was a penalty for holding. No play, 10 yard loss.
1st and 20: Welker caught a short pass over the middle and took a big shot after a gain of just three.
2nd and 17: J. Thomas caught a pass to get across the 20 yard line for a gain of eight yards.
3rd and 9: Manning went downfield but couldn't complete the pass to D. Thomas. The reason? He was being interfered with and the referees made the call to give Denver the first down.
1st and 10: Welker picked up a first down with an inside hit near mid-field.
1st and 10: Another short pass over the middle leads to 11 more yards and a first down. Seattle is giving up the little chunks of yards.
1st and 10: Manning took a shot down the field and found Welker, again over the middle, and he got out of bounds after 22 yards inside the 15 yard line.
1st and 10: Manning found D. Thomas in the end zone for a touchdown. There goes the shutout. The two-point conversion attempt was successful.


Its kind of clear from the play-by-play at this point that Denver is somewhat demoralized from series of "tackle-breaking"-runs in the first 3 quarters and that perhaps plays after this point may not reflect "normal", or "ideal" settings via which to continue to asses the efficacy of the modeling-approach.


Play-by-Play sources;

1st Quarter;

2nd Quarter;

3rd Quarter;

4th Quarter;