Mathematically impossible

[Wynonie Harris]

...which would appear to me to blow the five more wins theory right out of the water.

[entwisi]

I guess what is more important than the number of points the winners got is how many points second place got each year. After all, you only need 1 more point than second place to win it.

[WOLVERHAMPTON REDS]

last 5 seasons 74,91.78.84.80 points
average 81 points so 82 could see accrington promoted as champions

[Whalley Red]

If Hereford win their remaining 14 games, they would finish on 93pts. So we currently need 27pts from 13 games to mathematically certain of winning the league.

[Wynonie Harris]

Second place teams totals:-
2005 Hereford 74
2004 Hereford 91
2003 Morecambe 78
2002 Daggers 84
2001 Yeovil 80

...which would tend to suggest that 82 points might be enough...or then again it might not!

[rob]

http://bet365.stats.football365.com/.../FC/runin.html

[KIPAX]

Cheers rob .. So we can still be relegated then...

[glosterred]

#22 Today, 12:38
KIPAX
Photographer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Discworld
Posts: 3,077 | Ackers: 1,661.66
Karma: 149 |
Power: 10

Re: Mathematically impossible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cheers rob .. So we can still be relegated then...

kipax (one p ) by my reckoning if crawley lose tonight we are safe on goal difference!!!
come on you harriers!!!

[Diesel]

Relegation is mathematically impossible, only 2 teams go down this year

[viaedolo26]

Fantastic!!!! I sadly couldn't see the game on my stupid Freeview box. A compilation of games highlights would be a great idea. Back in the League...Wow...takes me back to watching the Reds at the Peel Park (my first school) ground!!!!
All the best to the team from an Accy supporters club member exiled in London ...and soon to be even further away in Tokyo!!

[Tealeaf]

Well, it is nice to see that the difference between mathematical certainty and statistical probablity has been established. The sharp eyed amongst you will have spotted the fatal conceptual flaw in Rob's betting table link.
For those of you you ain't,the column stating "lowest possible position" is of course, incorrect; Stanley could only end up third from bottom on the basis that every other individual team won every subsequent game; you don't need to be a brain surgeon to work out that this is not quite possible.

Here's a more interesting mathamatical conindrum for you to calculate. For Stanley's second goal last night, and assuming that Mullen shot from 15ft from the nearest goallpost,and the ball missed that nearest post by 2" on the outside and then passed the far post by 2" on the inside, what was the angle of shot?

[Oggy]

Nice one Tealeaf, was only thinking the same myself about Rob's table.

Degrees or radians? (That would be Mullin, BTW)

[KiTChener]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Here's a more interesting mathamatical conindrum for you to calculate. For Stanley's second goal last night, and assuming that Mullen shot from 15ft from the nearest goallpost,and the ball missed that nearest post by 2" on the outside and then passed the far post by 2" on the inside, what was the angle of shot?

After last night, followed by a hard day at work, my brain hurts just reading that bit!!

[BLACKBURN RAVER]

Originally Posted by Oggy

Where do you get that from?

Show your workings in the margin.

1. sky sports last night

2. i dont need to, i didnt come up with it so i dont need to work it out

[Oggy]

Originally Posted by BLACKBURN RAVER

1. sky sports last night

2. i dont need to, i didnt come up with it so i dont need to work it out

The mind boggles, do you repeat everything you hear without thinking?