That is exactly what you are doing. You are evaluating the situations through your own bias, not just the facts of the situation. The Saints get a favorable assessment because you assume they were thoughtful, completely prepared and in control of the situation. The Pats get an unfavorable assessment because you assume they were reckless, arrogant and unprepared. You can change the adjectives but the point is still the same.
I'm not assuming anything. The Patriots had to piss away a timeout because they weren't prepared and had the wrong personnel ready to go.
True but meaningless in this context. The success rate of any onside kick isn't very good. If it was, teams would be doing it all the time. What is the success rate of a surprise onside kick vs. Tom Brady converting a 4th-n-2?
According to the announcers, the success rate of a surprise onside kick is about 60%. That would be just about the same as the 4th down success rate the Belichick defenders were claiming.
Also true. You think the Pats ever practiced converting short yardage situations? You think the Pats watched film on the Colts and knew their tendencies in those situations? There is your bias. The Saints were prepared for the situation and the Pats pulled it out of their arse. BTW, Baskett got to the ball just fine so it wasn't like he was running down the field which the Saints recovered uncontested. So you are giving the Saints credit for noticing a tendency that didn't actually work to their benefit in the game. Again, the outcome was positive so who cares?
You don't seem to understand what "bias" is as applied, and you don't seem to want to understand the difference between practicing for a specifically known weakness of preparation and practicing a general play for a general situation.
And the tendency clearly worked to their benefit in the game. Perhaps you didn't actually watch the Super Bowl?
They hadn't gotten into the end zone in 2 quarters of play. The Pats offense had scored a ton and racked up a boatload of yardage. Yet the Saints offense was rolling and the Pats were falling apart. If the Saints were going so well on offense, why risk an onside kick. Their defense had only given up 10 points and the offense would have gotten 5 drives in the second half anyway.
Yes, it's true that the Saints looked as if they'd be better able to stop the Colts if given a short field. How that's supposed to mean that the decisions are identical is one for you to try, and fail, arguing. 13-6 isn't a particularly difficult hill to have to climb.
Totally true. But the Pats were coming out of halftime after not scoring a touchdown and only trailing by 4 points. Also totally true. Evaluating which of these situations called for a conventional call and which called for something risky is completely based on your bias.
Again, you seem to be defining "bias" on your own terms. There's no "bias" in understanding that having the lead with 2 minutes to go in the game is better than not having the lead. There's no "bias" in understanding that it's more difficult to score when you've got more distance to cover. There's no "bias" in understanding that it's a lot easier to come back when you've got about 30 minutes to do so than when you've got a minute or less. None of that is "bias", no matter how you try to re-define the word to suit your purposes.
What difference does that make? The officials didn't do anything different with that information. All it does is play into your narrative that the Saints were completely in control of the situation. Implying the Pats were not in control of theirs.
Actually, what it does is show that the Saints made certain that the officials were paying attention so that they'd be more prepared to deal with the type of scrum that so often accompanies onside kicks. Yes, it does imply that the Saints had themselves under better control than a team that had to blow its last timeout because it wasn't prepared.
But I can do the same "entirety of the situation" with a bias towards the Pats. All it says is that you can justify your opinion by saying it is backed up by your bias and value system. Easy to do and anybody can win by saying their value systems is better. So lets just say I agree that you believe you are right.
Yes, you can do the same if you define "bias" in such a way as to make the word irrelevant. All judgment calls involve judgment, after all. However, and apparently unlike yourself on this, I use non-subjective, non-biased information to inform my decision.
If you use "bias" as you're trying to, you insulate every decision, ever made, by anyone, from questioning.
