Please critique my Seahawks speech

[jewhawk]

Lets say for example you have a 10% chance of winning something and the payout is 10 to 1. If you keep making that bet, over time you’ll break even.

This is wrong. If you have a 10% chance of winning a bet then if you keep making it, you will break even at 9/1 odds, not 10/1.

I’m going to cover three main points.

1. They have the most talented team in the NFL. They were so close last year, and they’ve made great moves this offseason to improve even more.
2. Their quarterback Russell Wilson thrives under pressure and is capable of rising up to any challenge.
3. The Vegas pay-out is better than the actual odds.

.....

Based on what I’ve already told you, you should feel confident the Seahawks have at least a 20% chance of winning the next Super Bowl.

The main problem with your speech is you don't argue for point 3. It seems like you're just pulling the "at least 20%" number out of the air. Someone knowledgeable of sports betting would point out that there aren't any teams with 20% or better odds to win the Super Bowl according to the Vegas books, so even if the Seahawks are the most talented team and favorites to win the Super Bowl, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered at least 20% or better to win the Super Bowl.

 

[HagFaithful]

Jew & Omaha, lighten up. I think this being a PUBLIC SPEAKING class and not a portfolio proposal to an investment firm, the OP's being graded on delivery more than content. Don't bog the OP down in semantics and harsh their mellow.

OP: Say what you're going to say, say it, summarize what you said. Be engaging. Know your content (don't let the notecards be a distraction) work your non-verbals (eye contact, hand gestures, try not to cower behind the podium, and if there is one, think about working in it's area but not behind it), and don't drone-on like Troy Aikman talking about Michael Irvin or Emmitt Smith - have some voice command and enunciate points.

Know it, own it, have fun with it.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

The main problem with your speech is you don't argue for point 3. It seems like you're just pulling the "at least 20%" number out of the air. Someone knowledgeable of sports betting would point out that there aren't any teams with 20% or better odds to win the Super Bowl according to the Vegas books, so even if the Seahawks are the most talented team and favorites to win the Super Bowl, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered at least 20% or better to win the Super Bowl.

I'm guessing that since he's a reader of FO and using FO statistics as a core argument, he's basing the 20% estimation off what FO said our chances were as we neared and eventually clinched a playoff berth last year (which was hovering around 15% or so if I'm not mistaken). I'm guessing it's a little rounded up because we will presumably be that much better, we might have a home playoff game or two, and 20% sounds a lot better than an inconsequentially lower amount like 18-19%. Besides, it's speech class. The practice with structuring and presentation means more than the fine details.

 

[Sarlacc83]

The main problem with your speech is you don't argue for point 3. It seems like you're just pulling the "at least 20%" number out of the air. Someone knowledgeable of sports betting would point out that there aren't any teams with 20% or better odds to win the Super Bowl according to the Vegas books, so even if the Seahawks are the most talented team and favorites to win the Super Bowl, that doesn't necessarily mean they should be considered at least 20% or better to win the Super Bowl.

I'm guessing that since he's a reader of FO and using FO statistics as a core argument, he's basing the 20% estimation off what FO said our chances were as we neared and eventually clinched a playoff berth last year (which was hovering around 15% or so if I'm not mistaken). I'm guessing it's a little rounded up because we will presumably be that much better, we might have a home playoff game or two, and 20% sounds a lot better than an inconsequentially lower amount like 18-19%. Besides, it's speech class. The practice with structuring and presentation means more than the fine details.

Disagree. The fine details are the facts that lead you to conclusions which will be the linchpins in the overall structure. Ignoring them for statistics pulled out of a hat is equivocation or demagoguery. Just because the words are spoken doesn't preclude the need for accuracy where available.