Man, I am working on a project just like this, but with high school teams. The problem is that these guys seem to lack how coaches make decisions when calling

Man, I am working on a project just like this, but with high school teams. The problem is that these guys seem to lack how coaches make decisions when calling plays. I have a few problems with their research: 1) There are A LOT more variables that go into coaching decisions. They picked QB completion percent as the one they correlated. This is just a way over simplification of the process. 2) They applied their findings on the whole league to an individual coach. They is too much variance between coaches that you just can't do this and be sound. 3) Even if they are right 90% of the time, this may not even be good enough. Football plays are sort of like no-limit poker. Any one play can determine a game. So, if you are wrong 10% of the time, this still may result in giving up a touchdown because you relied on the probability that they would pass/run the ball. 4) Coaches are humans and they can very readily make adjustments to their biases. I have seen it myself when coaching. A coach realizes he has called 55% of his plays to the right, so he ends up calling the next few plays to the left. All these tendencies are shown to coaches every week, as a result, they work very hard to counter act their own tendencies. For me, more promising is using their anti-biases against them. In a truly random pattern, seeing a run of five plays to the Right isn't that unusual. However, in football play calling, you won't see this nearly as much as you think you would. That's my idea. I am still working on the math, but it might take awhile to be usable.