Do the OF get more home draws?

[GordonS]

The traditional complaints because Rangers & Celtic were both drawn at home today made me wonder if there's anything behind it, so I decided to have a look. I thought 10 years of draws for the League Cup and the Scottish Cup would give me a big enough sample size. In that time:

Rangers - 54 home-or-away ties, 34 at home, 63%

Celtic - 48 home-or-away ties, 26 home, 54%

(Rangers have more because they entered in the early rounds when they were in the seaside leagues.)

Celtic's figure is close enough to 50% not to bear further scrutiny. But Rangers? The probability that if you flip a coin 54 times it comes down on one side 34 times or more is 3.8%. (See https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/coin-flip-probability)

The big caveat around this is that a 3.8% chance of something happening isn't all that small. In fact it's probable that it would happen to 1 or 2 SPFL sides over a sample that size. And it cuts both ways - 3.8% of clubs will be away 63% of the time or more.

What would help in working out how jammy Rangers are is to look at the same record for every other SPFL club over their past 50-ish home-or-away draws. I'm tragic enough to have done this for the OF but I'm not tragic enough to keep going, so if anyone wants to work it out for their club and post it here then please do. If we get all the clubs we can see where they sit on a binomial distribution curve and see who's the most/least lucky. Rangers may not be the luckiest.

One other thing that I could do is see if there's a difference between Scottish Cup and League Cup draws - but beware of slicing up samples, if you torture data enough it will tell you anything you want.

As for the other complaint, that they get easier draws, that's a tough one to work out. You'd need to rank the teams in each draw and then keep score of how much above or below the middle rank their opponent is. I'm not touching that, but I suspect it's a myth.

[Monkey Tennis]

There is absolutely no need to fix draws, given how advantaged the OF already is in other respects.

I think it's likely that there used to be some 'heated ball' type jiggery pokery back in the day -  I'm not thinking so much of home ties though.  They very very seldom used to meet in cup ties unless both reached the final.  It was most pronounced in semi finals where the chances of them meeting would be one in three, but it very rarely ever happened.  I think someone once broke that down statistically, and found that the picture emerging was extremely improbable.

Since draws became televised, however, they've actually met quite a lot, often in fairly early rounds.

There is nothing clandestine about how favoured the OF is nowadays.  Rangers have had a good run of home draws, but the idea of this being evidence of corruption is too tinfoil in nature.

Even for me.

 

PS You could expand the Rangers sample over the period further, by including Challenge Cup ties.  I don't know if that would alter the picture at all.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Monkey Tennis

[VictorOnopko]

Didn't Rangers get something like 12+ home cup draws in a row a while ago?  The odds against that happening were... high.  That's in addition to the overall 3.8% chance of getting 34/54 as calculated above.

Yesterday's draw looked dodgy both in terms of how it was carried out and the end result.

I agree that there's no real need to fix draws as the OF have so many advantages - but I think it's quite obvious (from the odds alone) that it has happened and is still happening. It's interesting that other than Avril's comment yesterday, very very few remarks are ever made or eyebrows raised about the home OF draws on programmes like Sportsound, even in jest. Got to keep the pandering up and keep the OF fanbases happy.

[Dundee Hibernian]

One striking aspect, to me, is that one of them, usually the blue cheek, gets drawn out of the hat for a draw first. Anyone noticing this?

[TheScarf]

The quick and correct answer is 'yes'.

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

Witches, illuminati lizards, enemies of the people, phobes/ists, Yahweh/Allah, feng shui...

G. K. Chesterton never actually said: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he'll believe in anything."... but it's an accurate summary of humanity's default mindset.

The OP does have the intelligence to point out that there is almost a 4% chance of a club getting the home/away split that Rangers have fluked. With 42 SPFL clubs....

You do the math.

10 seasons and 50-odd draws is not a sufficiently large sample size from which to draw conclusions.

It's as if I've wandered back onto Miggs.Net, where this type of thread is common. (Even more common than on Follow Follow)

My fave was "Is Levein's "Natural Order" Comment Sectarian?"... which, to be fair, is the type of thread title I used to put up as a pisstake on Celtic & Rangers forums, but the thread starter and most respondents seemed sincere. "Is Kevin Clancy a Sticky?" & "Is Tom English a Jambo?" were other classics. 

There was a long period on the 1970s/80s where the Erse Cheeks avoided each other in a seemingly infeasible number of semi-final draws, and in the rounds prior to the SFs. I recall they then drew each other very early three times in quick succession.

This isn't even a topic on which it's possible to have a rational debate. As with the list at the start of my post, those who "believe" in the phenomena do so in circumstances where there is almost no evidence to support their "belief." They will seize upon any sliver of information that supports their "belief" and dismiss any contrary argument.

There is a dedicated section of this site for this type of conjecture. This thread should be in that section.

[Monkey Tennis]

34 minutes ago, FortescueFotheringhamSmyth said:

The OP does have the intelligence to point out that there is almost a 4% chance of a club getting the home/away split that Rangers have fluked. With 42 SPFL clubs....

You do the math.

Did you actually read the post in question?

He very explicitly concedes all of the above when he says:

"Rangers? The probability that if you flip a coin 54 times it comes down on one side 34 times or more is 3.8%. The big caveat around this is that a 3.8% chance of something happening isn't all that small. In fact it's probable that it would happen to 1 or 2 SPFL sides over a sample that size."

Edited August 16, 2021 by Monkey Tennis

[The Master]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

There is absolutely no need to fix draws, given how advantaged the OF already is in other respects.

I think it's likely that there used to be some 'heated ball' type jiggery pokery back in the day -  I'm not thinking so much of home ties though.  They very very seldom used to meet in cup ties unless both reached the final.  It was most pronounced in semi finals where the chances of them meeting would be one in three, but it very rarely ever happened.  I think someone once broke that down statistically, and found that the picture emerging was extremely improbable.

Since draws became televised, however, they've actually met quite a lot, often in fairly early rounds.

There is nothing clandestine about how favoured the OF is nowadays.  Rangers have had a good run of home draws, but the idea of this being evidence of corruption is too tinfoil in nature.

Even for me.

This.

When you consider the sheer number of people that have been involved in cup draws throughout the years, it's hard to imagine that every single one of them has decided to keep quiet and not expose the hot/cold ball conspiracy.

As for the @GordonS's "analysis", you can't draw any meaningful conclusions without looking at the home/away split for all teams across the same time period. Comparing them only to Celtic makes you guilty of exactly the sort of thing we would see in the Terrible Journalism Thread (which you acknowledge, but still...). 

Edited August 16, 2021 by The Master

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, The Master said:

 

As for the OP's "analysis", you can't draw any meaningful conclusions without looking at the home/away split for all teams across the same time period. Comparing them only to Celtic makes you guilty of exactly the sort of thing we would see in the Terrible Journalism Thread.

In fairness, he does invite people to provide detail on other clubs' records in this respect.

[Mr. Brightside]

43 minutes ago, FortescueFotheringhamSmyth said:

Witches, illuminati lizards, enemies of the people, phobes/ists, Yahweh/Allah, feng shui...

G. K. Chesterton never actually said: "When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn't believe in nothing; he'll believe in anything."... but it's an accurate summary of humanity's default mindset.

The OP does have the intelligence to point out that there is almost a 4% chance of a club getting the home/away split that Rangers have fluked. With 42 SPFL clubs....

You do the math.

10 seasons and 50-odd draws is not a sufficiently large sample size from which to draw conclusions.

It's as if I've wandered back onto Miggs.Net, where this type of thread is common. (Even more common than on Follow Follow)

My fave was "Is Levein's "Natural Order" Comment Sectarian?"... which, to be fair, is the type of thread title I used to put up as a pisstake on Celtic & Rangers forums, but the thread starter and most respondents seemed sincere. "Is Kevin Clancy a Sticky?" & "Is Tom English a Jambo?" were other classics. 

There was a long period on the 1970s/80s where the Erse Cheeks avoided each other in a seemingly infeasible number of semi-final draws, and in the rounds prior to the SFs. I recall they then drew each other very early three times in quick succession.

This isn't even a topic on which it's possible to have a rational debate. As with the list at the start of my post, those who "believe" in the phenomena do so in circumstances where there is almost no evidence to support their "belief." They will seize upon any sliver of information that supports their "belief" and dismiss any contrary argument.

There is a dedicated section of this site for this type of conjecture. This thread should be in that section.

[The Master]

15 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Did you actually read the post in question?

He very explicitly concedes all of the above when he says:

"Rangers? The probability that if you flip a coin 54 times it comes down on one side 34 times or more is 3.8%. The big caveat around this is that a 3.8% chance of something happening isn't all that small. In fact it's probable that it would happen to 1 or 2 SPFL sides over a sample that size."

Cue people sarcastically claiming that it must be "co-incidence" that Rangers/"Rangers" "just happen" to be one of the sides. 

Which is a variation on the mere-exposure effect. 

9 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

In fairness, he does invite people to provide detail on other clubs' records in this respect.

Yes, I noticed that and edited my post. I think my point still stands, though, because it just makes for a clickbait-y thread where people will see the 63% and be utterly outraged. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by The Master

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, The Master said:

I think my point still stands, though, because it just makes for a clickbait-y thread where people will see the 63% and be utterly outraged. 

I don't think that's particularly fair.

The thread title is a question, while the opening post is full of nuance.

The only outrage in evidence has come from a mouthy walloper who clearly hadn't even read it properly and was taking the opposite view from that you're suggesting.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

PS You could expand the Rangers sample over the period further, by including Challenge Cup ties.  I don't know if that would alter the picture at all.

For something with a binomial outcome a sample size of 54 is pretty big. However, what I'll do is run the previous 50-ish - not to increase the sample size but as a second sample, for comparison.

1 hour ago, VictorOnopko said:

Didn't Rangers get something like 12+ home cup draws in a row a while ago?  The odds against that happening were... high.  That's in addition to the overall 3.8% chance of getting 34/54 as calculated above.

Yesterday's draw looked dodgy both in terms of how it was carried out and the end result.

I agree that there's no real need to fix draws as the OF have so many advantages - but I think it's quite obvious (from the odds alone) that it has happened and is still happening. It's interesting that other than Avril's comment yesterday, very very few remarks are ever made or eyebrows raised about the home OF draws on programmes like Sportsound, even in jest. Got to keep the pandering up and keep the OF fanbases happy.

In that sample Rangers had a string of 9 home ties, but they also had a string of 5 away ties. Neither of these are particularly improbable are are likely to happen to someone. The thing about very unlikely things is that they happen all the time when you're looking at a big pool of... things. 

As a matter of statistical fact, it's not at all "obvious" that there's fixing going on. It's a probability that a couple of clubs would have a record like this or better, which I thought I'd said in my post. You can't call fix when it happens to Rangers but not when it's another club. 

42 minutes ago, FortescueFotheringhamSmyth said:

 

Blah blah blah

 

How to say "I'm a Rangers fan" without saying "I'm a Rangers fan".

You must have deliberately misread my post to come up with that pile of guff. In particular, you chose to ignore the bit where I pointed out that Rangers had been lucky, which is beyond question, but that one or two SPFL clubs would be this lucky over a sample of this size.

All I did was, as you call it "the math". In case you're wondering, my personal opinion is that there's never been any fixing going on. If there were, someone would have blabbed by now.

5 minutes ago, The Master said:

This.

When you consider the sheer number of people that have been involved in cup draws throughout the years, it's hard to imagine that every single one of them has decided to keep quiet and not expose the hot/cold ball conspiracy.

As for the @GordonS's "analysis", you can't draw any meaningful conclusions without looking at the home/away split for all teams across the same time period. Comparing them only to Celtic makes you guilty of exactly the sort of thing we would see in the Terrible Journalism Thread (which you acknowledge, but still...). 

Woah, you completely missed the point of including Celtic.

I wasn't comparing one to the other, I was looking to see if both beat the odds on home draws. The accusation is made against both of them and I had no way of knowing that there would be a difference until I counted them.

Why do you think I asked folk to do the same thing for the past 50-ish draws for their club? Or did you expect me to spend more time doing it?

[GordonS]

16 minutes ago, The Master said:

Cue people sarcastically claiming that it must be "co-incidence" that Rangers/"Rangers" "just happen" to be one of the sides. 

Which is a variation on the mere-exposure effect. 

Yes, I noticed that and edited my post. I think my point still stands, though, because it just makes for a clickbait-y thread where people will see the 63% and be utterly outraged. 

Your point doesn't stand. You missed the point completely, saw what you wanted to see, had a rant, and now you've realised it you don't want to walk it back.

There was nothing in my post from which you could infer that I was suggesting the draws were fixed. I was very clear that you'd expect one or two clubs to be this lucky.

ETA As for "clickbaity title"... yeah, you're definitely seeing what you want to see! The reason I started this was because I thought, and still think, the claims that it's fixed are just a long-running myth.

Edited August 16, 2021 by GordonS

[VictorOnopko]

16 minutes ago, GordonS said:

In that sample Rangers had a string of 9 home ties, but they also had a string of 5 away ties. Neither of these are particularly improbable are are likely to happen to someone. The thing about very unlikely things is that they happen all the time when you're looking at a big pool of... things. 

As a matter of statistical fact, it's not at all "obvious" that there's fixing going on. It's a probability that a couple of clubs would have a record like this or better, which I thought I'd said in my post. You can't call fix when it happens to Rangers but not when it's another club.

Fair enough.  We'd need to have the home games %s for every club to answer the question in the thread title.  I would be willing to bet that Rangers' 63% at home, and run of 9 home matches, are both clear winners though...

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

OK. I apologise, Gordon. Your initial post was informative, thoughtful and analytical. I was a mite too cynical. But you were aware of precisely where this thread would go.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I had the benefit of going to the best school I could reasonably have attended. There were a lot of clever b*****ds there. The number of brats viewed as being more intelligent than me was terrifyingly small. Some of my schoolmates, unlike me, have used their education to achieve things. None currently riding high politically (Thank f**k!) but a few pre-eminent in their scientific field, prominent in business (or banking) and even the odd arty type. 

How far short of the level of intelligence and cunning required to pull off any of the common alleged conspiracies do I believe any of my ex-schoolmates to be? About as far shy as Brechin City are of the standard required to win the Champions League. Admittedly, rigging a cup draw isn't on a par with being the Elders of Zion, but none of those involved in cup draws attended my school (or, in all probability, any educational establishment in the same league) so I still don't buy it.

Edited August 16, 2021 by FortescueFotheringhamSmyth
Massun frassun rassun bassun Spellchecker

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

...and the information on Cup draws has to be available somewhere. Likely in lots of places.

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

Or perhaps God's a Presbyterian

[Monkey Tennis]

4 minutes ago, FortescueFotheringhamSmyth said:

But you were aware of precisely where this thread would go.

It's not gone there yet.

[FortescueFotheringhamSmyth]

Yet