Analytics question - going for 2 points the entire game

[NewEra 2014]

I went to the Fiesta Bowl this week (a great time, BTW) and our group was discussing analytics. One question that came up was somewhat related to other discussions we have had on this board. Namely, if the expected point value for going for 2 after a TD is slightly more than one point per attempt, why don't teams always go for 2?

We went down a rabbit hole about this topic, and I don't want to bias the board discussion. But I am curious as to what folks think about the topic.

 

[Bvillebaron]

I went to the Fiesta Bowl this week (a great time, BTW) and our group was discussing analytics. One question that came up was somewhat related to other discussions we have had on this board. Namely, if the expected point value for going for 2 after a TD is slightly more than one point per attempt, why don't teams always go for 2?

We went down a rabbit hole about this topic, and I don't want to bias the board discussion. But I am curious as to what folks think about the topic.

I think most coaches should ignore analytics and use judgment based on the game situation.

 

[cjrugger]

I went to the Fiesta Bowl this week (a great time, BTW) and our group was discussing analytics. One question that came up was somewhat related to other discussions we have had on this board. Namely, if the expected point value for going for 2 after a TD is slightly more than one point per attempt, why don't teams always go for 2?

We went down a rabbit hole about this topic, and I don't want to bias the board discussion. But I am curious as to what folks think about the topic.

Some teams in lower levels of football do. No one has done it yet in big time football because it's scary to be the first person to buck conventional wisdom and the coach would be second guessed non-stop

 

[Catch1lion]

I think most coaches should ignore analytics and use judgment based on the game situation.

Listened to a Tom Brady game over the weekend and he said the same thing at least three times.

 

[psuro]

I went to the Fiesta Bowl this week (a great time, BTW) and our group was discussing analytics. One question that came up was somewhat related to other discussions we have had on this board. Namely, if the expected point value for going for 2 after a TD is slightly more than one point per attempt, why don't teams always go for 2?

We went down a rabbit hole about this topic, and I don't want to bias the board discussion. But I am curious as to what folks think about the topic.

The percentage of kicking and making the extra point is greater than the percentage of making the 2 point conversion.

 

[Grant Green]

If you multiple your 2pt pct by 2 and it's higher than your fg pct, you would score more points over the course of the season by going for 2.
Like cjrugger said, no coach would actually do it for fear of public backlash. Malcolm glad gladwell did a podcast on this.

 

[NewEra 2014]

Some teams in lower levels of football do. No one has done it yet in big time football because it's scary to be the first person to buck conventional wisdom and the coach would be second guessed non-stop

I think Oregon was getting there at one point a few years ago. I remember them going for 2 on their first TD of the game a few times, but it doesn't seem as though Lanning has carried through with that philosophy.

 

[Grant Green]

I think Oregon was getting there at one point a few years ago. I remember them going for 2 on their first TD of the game a few times, but it doesn't seem as though Lanning has carried through with that philosophy.

Chip Kelly would do it, but as you said, just on the first TD. not sure why. I recall Tomlin occasionally doing this too, which is really strange.

 

[TiogaLion]

@CaliLion79 Could you ask Coach Codutti to give us his thoughts on going for 2 points and also going for it on 4th down? I understand he does both but I never heard his logic. TIA

 

[Bison13]

Mathematically it makes sense but it also requires more practice time due to needing to try more plays. Some coaches dont want to resort to messing with their daily/weekly planning

 

[PSU89er]

Its not that hard. From everything I've read two point conversions are made about 40% of the time. If a team could keep that number around 50%, it makes sense. At 40% it need to be done more strategically like the down 8 points late deal that everyone jumped on Franklin about in the B10 title game, or down 5 late trying to cut the lead to a FG, or down 11 in the fourth trying to cut it from two TDs to a TD and FG.

Even when you use it based on strategy, fans will go nuts if it isn't made, and say how dumb the decision was.

 

[NewEra 2014]

Its not that hard. From everything I've read two point conversions are made about 40% of the time. If a team could keep that number around 50%, it makes sense. At 40% it need to be done more strategically like the down 8 points late deal that everyone jumped on Franklin about in the B10 title game, or down 5 late trying to cut the lead to a FG, or down 11 in the fourth trying to cut it from two TDs to a TD and FG.

Even when you use it based on strategy, fans will go nuts if it isn't made, and say how dumb the decision was.

I don't think the controversy is associated with going for 2 when down 8. It is about going for 2 when down 14 or 15, which more and more coaches are doing earlier and earlier in the game. Some people do think it is dumb to go for 2 too early in the game when down multiple scores.

 

[LionJim]

Has this been discussed: nowadays whenever the D jumps offside on a PAT, go for 2 is the default.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I don't think the controversy is associated with going for 2 when down 8. It is about going for 2 when down 14 or 15, which more and more coaches are doing earlier and earlier in the game. Some people do think it is dumb to go for 2 too early in the game when down multiple scores.

He's talking about down 8 AFTER the touchdown (so the "down 14" in your scenario).

 

[Grant Green]

Its not that hard. From everything I've read two point conversions are made about 40% of the time. If a team could keep that number around 50%, it makes sense. At 40% it need to be done more strategically like the down 8 points late deal that everyone jumped on Franklin about in the B10 title game, or down 5 late trying to cut the lead to a FG, or down 11 in the fourth trying to cut it from two TDs to a TD and FG.

Even when you use it based on strategy, fans will go nuts if it isn't made, and say how dumb the decision was.

Agree, but I thought the average 2 pt rate is more like 45-48%.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Agree, but I thought the average 2 pt rate is more like 45-48%.

The overall percentage is also irrelevant in a particular game. Having an 85% success rate against the MAC portion of the schedule would mean nothing when you’re playing Ohio State.

 

[Grant Green]

The overall percentage is also irrelevant in a particular game. Having an 85% success rate against the MAC portion of the schedule would mean nothing when you’re playing Ohio State.

I'm not saying to apply a blanket average in every situation, I'm just trying to establish a benchmark average.
And btw, if you really think you have an 85% success rate vs a MAC opponent, you should absolutely go for 2 every time.

 

[Psumatt85]

Has this been discussed: nowadays whenever the D jumps offside on a PAT, go for 2 is the default.

What was PSUs points per attempt against Illinois in 2022?

 

[TheBigUglies]

There are many data points that go into a model in order to determine the output variable you are looking for. Each model may or may not be different based on many other variables based on your team and the team you are playing. Hopefully the person that put together the mode did not put together a biased model which may or may not weight some data points over others. I am sure there are some models that say if you go for 2 on your first TD when the other team has not scored you gives you a larger percentage of winning the game which may have factored into those decisions. I know teams that always went for 2 no matter what because they didn't have a reliable kicker that could always make the xtra point. There are so many things that go into the analytics in each and every situation and you have to hope/trust your analytics team is creating valid models the can predict desired outcomes.

 

[Grant Green]

I went to the Fiesta Bowl this week (a great time, BTW) and our group was discussing analytics. One question that came up was somewhat related to other discussions we have had on this board. Namely, if the expected point value for going for 2 after a TD is slightly more than one point per attempt, why don't teams always go for 2?

We went down a rabbit hole about this topic, and I don't want to bias the board discussion. But I am curious as to what folks think about the topic.

Check it out. Very timely tweet. This is more in response to going for 2 when down by 8. @Erial_Lion
Seems like we are trending down.

 

[PSU89er]

Agree, but I thought the average 2 pt rate is more like 45-48%.

You'd think trying to get stats on how often the two point conversation work would be simple. I've looked more than once and you usually get a bunch of opinions. This is a nice article from 2017 that has historical data.

It contains this 20 years worth piece of data. This would be from 1997 to 2017. The success rate has gone down just a bit as well, from an average of 42.7 percent in the first 10 years to 40.5 percent in the past 10 years.

The art of the 2 point conversion: When and why to go for it

Earlier this season, in the second overtime of its season opener against Tennessee, Georgia Tech scored a touchdown to pull within one, but eschewed kicking the extra point and decided to attempt a two-point conversion for the win instead. WATCH: Tennessee stops Georgia Tech's two-point...

www.ncaa.com

 

[Erial_Lion]

Check it out. Very timely tweet. This is more in response to going for 2 when down by 8. @Erial_Lion
Seems like we are trending down.

I can’t find any good data behind two point success rate either (I know all the spots to get data on the basketball side, but never had a need for it in football).

 

[Nits1989]

I wouldn‘t go for 2 the entire game. Too much effort for too little reward. Not getting it could have a negative emotional impact. I’d only go for it situationally.

 

[Grant Green]

I wouldn‘t go for 2 the entire game. Too much effort for too little reward. Not getting it could have a negative emotional impact. I’d only go for it situationally.

Doesn't getting the 2pt boost emotional impact? Seems like a net zero to me.

 

[Nits1989]

Doesn't getting the 2pt boost emotional impact? Seems like a net zero to me.

I think you get a nice emotional boost after a TD. Kick the field goal and keep the boost. Miss the 2 point conversion and there goes the boost. That’s how I feel. I’m just guessing it happens to others.

 

[Player2BNamedL8r]

Again, old(er) guy here - “analytics” are ruining a beautiful game!!

 

[NittanyBuff]

Its not that hard. From everything I've read two point conversions are made about 40% of the time. If a team could keep that number around 50%, it makes sense. At 40% it need to be done more strategically like the down 8 points late deal that everyone jumped on Franklin about in the B10 title game, or down 5 late trying to cut the lead to a FG, or down 11 in the fourth trying to cut it from two TDs to a TD and FG.

Even when you use it based on strategy, fans will go nuts if it isn't made, and say how dumb the decision was.

Made no sense to me to go for 2 when down down 14, you just scored, kick the pat and you are down 7, if you score again, you either tie the game or you can go for 2 and the win. When Franklin failed on the first 2pt attempt, it forces you to not only score a TD, but then you "Have" to convert the 2pt attempt just to tie the game.

 

[Grant Green]

Again, old(er) guy here - “analytics” are ruining a beautiful game!!

How? You don't like to see teams going for it instead of kicking field goals and punts?

 

[Erial_Lion]

Made no sense to me to go for 2 when down down 14, you just scored, kick the pat and you are down 7, if you score again, you either tie the game or you can go for 2 and the win. When Franklin failed on the first 2pt attempt, it forces you to not only score a TD, but then you "Have" to convert the 2pt attempt just to tie the game.

Again, the math is extremely clear on when to go for 2 if you're going to go for it after one of the two scores. Going for it after the first opens up another path to victory. Why would you pass on it after the first if you're considering going for it after the second one? Go for it after the first and miss, and you still have the chance to send it to OT when you "have" to convert. Go for it after the second and miss, and you've lost.

 

[Psumatt85]

I think you get a nice emotional boost after a TD. Kick the field goal and keep the boost. Miss the 2 point conversion and there goes the boost. That’s how I feel. I’m just guessing it happens to others.

Until you don’t score again and lose 7-6

 

[Moogy]

I think most coaches should ignore analytics and use judgment based on the game situation.

That’s analytics. It’s just bad analytics.

 

[Moogy]

Listened to a Tom Brady game over the weekend and he said the same thing at least three times.

Stud players are often terrible coaches and/or GMs.

 

[Nits1989]

Until you don’t score again and lose 7-6

How are you getting 6? 2 field goals…you never had a chance for a 2 point conversion anyway so it’s irrelevant. If you get 6 by scoring a touchdown and going for a 2 point conversion and not converting, you gambled and lost. If you kick a field goal, you still have a chance in overtime. So I’m not sure that your point makes any sense.

 

[Nits1989]

Stud players are often terrible coaches and/or GMs.

I’d listen to Brady. He’s an expert at football.

 

[1995PSUGrad]

Let me start by saying that I completely understand the math of going for 2 when down 14. I think it just makes sense. I would like to see coaches go for 2 much more often, I think it makes sense in most cases. However, I do wonder what the statistics would look like if multiple teams went for 2 after every touchdown over the course of the season. After Georgia won in 8 overtimes, Kirby Smart said that they had run out of 2 point plays. If go for 2 very seldomly, you often use a play that the other team hasn't seen you run on film and maybe increases the likelihood of its success. If you go for 2 after every touchdown, then you are going to use a significant number of plays, which means putting more on film (and more practice time taken away from some other aspect of the offense). I can't believe that any team would have a brand new 2 point play to use each time if they went for 2 after every touchdown, so teams would see your finite set of plays and be more prepared for them over time, which may decrease the success rate.

 

[Bvillebaron]

Listened to a Tom Brady game over the weekend and he said the same thing at least three times.

Yeah but what does he know about football huh?

 

[Grant Green]

Let me start by saying that I completely understand the math of going for 2 when down 14. I think it just makes sense. I would like to see coaches go for 2 much more often, I think it makes sense in most cases. However, I do wonder what the statistics would look like if multiple teams went for 2 after every touchdown over the course of the season. After Georgia won in 8 overtimes, Kirby Smart said that they had run out of 2 point plays. If go for 2 very seldomly, you often use a play that the other team hasn't seen you run on film and maybe increases the likelihood of its success. If you go for 2 after every touchdown, then you are going to use a significant number of plays, which means putting more on film (and more practice time taken away from some other aspect of the offense). I can't believe that any team would have a brand new 2 point play to use each time if they went for 2 after every touchdown, so teams would see your finite set of plays and be more prepared for them over time, which may decrease the success rate.

Fair point in regard to going for it every time. I don't think you'll ever see someone do it at a high level.

 

[Bvillebaron]

Its not that hard. From everything I've read two point conversions are made about 40% of the time. If a team could keep that number around 50%, it makes sense. At 40% it need to be done more strategically like the down 8 points late deal that everyone jumped on Franklin about in the B10 title game, or down 5 late trying to cut the lead to a FG, or down 11 in the fourth trying to cut it from two TDs to a TD and FG.

Even when you use it based on strategy, fans will go nuts if it isn't made, and say how dumb the decision was.

Franklin should have kicked the PAT

 

[blion72]

I think most coaches should ignore analytics and use judgment based on the game situation.

whether it is judgment of analytics (playing the odds) in the end game situation is the driver. factors mentioned already include:

• environment like weather conditions
• odds of making the PAT - could be a problem with kickers making that a factor.
• unique plays to use for 2 pt
• odds of making 2 pt against this opponent.
• game situation like score and time left.

There would be a lot of unique "math" for each game, and I wonder how many teams know this information real time in the game. That would suggest when they use the word "analytics" it means odds using the entire season and not specific to any one game.

 

[NittanyBuff]

All you guys that love going for 2 must just love the new overtime rules