Official PSU - Oregon '24 B1G Championship game thread

[Aquapong]

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Boise State
4. Arizona State
5. Domers
6. Texas
7. Penn State
8. Ohio State
9. Tennessee
10. Indiana
11. Clemson
12. SMU

That’s how it should go. But the committee will put Alabama in over SMU. They might swap Ohio State and Penn State and/or Clemson and Indiana.

 

[leinbacker]

It’s 100% the right decision. We’ve had numerous threads on here. It adds 10+% onto your odds of winning. Not doing it at this point should be highly criticized.

How does giving up a gimme point for a low odds 2-pt conversion increase your odds? Why not go for 1 then go for two if you get the touchdown to come within 1?

Missing it subtracts a bit from your odds of winning, probably substantially.

 

[Erial_Lion]

I like you in the betting thread and I know you and Grant have explained this elsewhere as have others across the football landscape but the game is not played with calculators. It's played with feel. Dan Campbell with the Lions is a great example of that. The calculators don't take into account the other team's defense, a center that steps on the QB's foot, or a receiver that runs a wrong route. It's the same critique I have of baseball managers who just have to bring in this pinch hitter for a guy that was 3 for 3 in the game simply because the pinch hitter is a lefty and the pitcher is a righty. If a team wants to go for 2 when it's a 1-point game in order to win the game (like if SMU had done it), I'll never complain about it. But I just feel like you put yourself in a bigger bind down by 8 if you don't convert. And given our penchant for running dopey plays in goal line situations, I would think our probabilities wouldn't match whatever the baseline is.

It’s such an obvious mathematical decision that goes beyond anything that could be determined with “feel”, “momentum “, etc. If youd ever consider doing for two, doing it after the first score is such an obvious decision.

It’s like playing poker (which is probably why @Grant Green and I feel strongly about it)…you might be able to win a hand/game here and there making sub-optimal decisions, but I’m always trying to make the right decision to maximize me EV. Going to 2 there is a completely obvious decision (and why good coaches are starting to do it every time).

 

[Phlebitis]

.

 

[Phlebitis]

So they would have dropped to 6 either way once Georgia won since they jumped everyone. Got it.

Messed up my edit above. Time to call it a night.

 

[LB99]

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Boise State
4. Arizona State
5. Domers
6. Texas
7. Penn State
8. Ohio State
9. Tennessee
10. Indiana
11. Clemson
12. SMU

That’s how it should go. But the committee will put Alabama in over SMU. They might swap Ohio State and Penn State and/or Clemson and Indiana.

ND should not get 5. They may, because the talking heads kiss their azz year after year, but TX and PSU should not be penalized for playing a conference championship game.

 

[Erial_Lion]

How does giving up a gimme point for a low odds 2-pt conversion increase your odds? Why not go for 1 then go for two if you get the touchdown to come within 1?

Missing it subtracts a bit from your odds of winning, probably substantially.

Discounting everything else, if you’re going for two after one of your touchdowns (if the game will have one more score), which is better…

go for two after the second one…get it and win, miss it and lose

go for two after the first one…get it and win, miss it and you can try to get two after the second one to send it to overtime

 

[Nothing Special]

…was the right decision.

I'm not nearly as criticial as some on here. I thought they competed and played pretty loose. But, there's always a but, in general, I will never understand why going for 2 after cutting the score to 8 is a good move. Kick the point. Down 7. Go for the win/lead if you score again. If the game goes differently and PSU is down 45-44 late in the game, I would have no criticism of a 2-point try.

All that said, it took a near perfect perormance from a veteran QB to beat them. Hats off to Oregon. Re-group and get ready for whoever is next. If they are lower than 7, then championship games aren't worth it. Should be 6, would disappointed, but kind of expect it to be 8.

 

[SouthHalls410]

ND should not get 5. They may, because the talking heads kiss their azz year after year, but TX and PSU should not be penalized for playing a conference championship game.

Exactly! Otherwise the conference championship games become nothing. Too much money to lose if that happens

 

[Connorpozlee]

It’s 100% the right decision. We’ve had numerous threads on here. It adds 10+% onto your odds of winning. Not doing it at this point should be highly criticized.

Could you explain that more in-depth? I don’t get it.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Could you explain that more in-depth? I don’t get it.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Going for 2 down 8 points: Packers pull off come-from-behind win thanks to this strategy

The Packers profited from being the first team this season to try this unconventional 2-point conversion attempt. Here's why others should follow their lead.

www.espn.com

it specifically says you have to assume the other team won’t score after you attempt the 2 point try. Oregon scored after we went for it and missed. Nothing about that game indicated that we were capable of stopping them at all. So You gambled for nothing, other than to kill momentum and make the offenses job harder. It’s a total gambling strategy based on nothing more than desperation. Plus, there has to be some reason that you are down 14 points; probably because you can’t stop the other team from scoring. If that article is why we went for it, color me unimpressed.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Could you explain that more in-depth? I don’t get it.

Why NFL teams go for two when down by 8 points late | Fox Sports

More NFL teams are going for two after they score a TD and trail by eight points late in games. If you don't understand why, we can explain.

amp.foxsports.com

 

[LB99]

Exactly! Otherwise the conference championship games become nothing. Too much money to lose if that happens

Right. And if they set that precedent then why would teams want to play in the conference championship games? Would there be “opt outs” of teams to preserve their seeding for the playoff, which is the ultimate prize.

 

[Erial_Lion]

it specifically says you have to assume the other team won’t score after you attempt the 2 point try. Oregon scored after we went for it and missed. Nothing about that game indicated that we were capable of stopping them at all. So You gambled for nothing, other than to kill momentum and make the offenses job harder. It’s a total gambling strategy based on nothing more than desperation. Plus, there has to be some reason that you are down 14 points; probably because you can’t stop the other team from scoring. If that article is why we went for it, color me unimpressed.

@Grant Green - how should coach franklin make decisions if we’re trying to win, but assuming we have zero chance of stopping the other team? Hoping you have the winning strategy, because I don’t.

 

[CDLionFL]

It’s such an obvious mathematical decision that goes beyond anything that could be determined with “feel”, “momentum “, etc. If youd ever consider doing for two, doing it after the first score is such an obvious decision.

It’s like playing poker (which is probably why @Grant Green and I feel strongly about it)…you might be able to win a hand/game here and there making sub-optimal decisions, but I’m always trying to make the right decision to maximize me EV. Going to 2 there is a completely obvious decision (and why good coaches are starting to do it every time).

Would you be willing to take on a research project for NFL games on the success rate of going for 2 down by 8 both in whether they converted and then what was the result of the game? Independent study, pass/fail, due by first playoff game.

 

[CDLionFL]

1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Boise State
4. Arizona State
5. Domers
6. Texas
7. Penn State
8. Ohio State
9. Tennessee
10. Indiana
11. Clemson
12. SMU

That’s how it should go. But the committee will put Alabama in over SMU. They might swap Ohio State and Penn State and/or Clemson and Indiana.

I think you have the teams right. I think Texas gets the 5 before ND, OSU should be above us, and I could see them manipulating the seeding to stay away from a OSU-Indiana rematch. But at this point, you get who you get in the bracket and see what happens when they roll the balls out.

 

[LB99]

I think you have the teams right. I think Texas gets the 5 before ND, OSU should be above us, and I could see them manipulating the seeding to stay away from a OSU-Indiana rematch. But at this point, you get who you get in the bracket and see what happens when they roll the balls out.

If they drop teams that played for a conference championship below other teams with the same record (who did not), they undermine the whole conference championship game integrity. In no way shape or form should that happen if they want to maintain that integrity.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Mina says it and the article says the same thing. It’s a gambling strategy to avoid overtime. It tries to give you better odds of winning in regulation. It probably assumes since you are down by 14 in the 4th you must suck compared to your opponent, so try and avoid overtime. Goofy momentum killing call in this instance that was not grounded in how easily Oregon was moving the ball and scoring.

 

[Erial_Lion]

Would you be willing to take on a research project for NFL games on the success rate of going for 2 down by 8 both in whether they converted and then what was the result of the game? Independent study, pass/fail, due by first playoff game.

I already posted an article covering it…but sample size is so small that you could never take anything meaningful from it.

 

[Alphalion75]

It’s 100% the right decision. We’ve had numerous threads on here. It adds 10+% onto your odds of winning. Not doing it at this point should be highly criticized.

No, no, no. When you are down 8, going fir 2 is never the right decision. The odds that you get back the lost 1 point later on are 50-1.

 

[Alphalion75]

You can't be serious

He's not.

 

[LB99]

I think you have the teams right. I think Texas gets the 5 before ND, OSU should be above us, and I could see them manipulating the seeding to stay away from a OSU-Indiana rematch. But at this point, you get who you get in the bracket and see what happens when they roll the balls out.

The committee does not consider rematches when seeding. It is irrelevant to them.

 

[Grant Green]

No, no, no. When you are down 8, going fir 2 is never the right decision. The odds that you get back the lost 1 point later on are 50-1.

Wrong.

 

[Grant Green]

@Grant Green - how should coach franklin make decisions if we’re trying to win, but assuming we have zero chance of stopping the other team? Hoping you have the winning strategy, because I don’t.

Of course you assume you have a chance of stopping them. We were pretty damn close to doing it so it obviously wasn't zero.

 

[Erial_Lion]

He's not.

I’m not serious that going for two was the right decision? It’s the right move 100 times out of 100.

 

[Erial_Lion]

No, no, no. When you are down 8, going fir 2 is never the right decision. The odds that you get back the lost 1 point later on are 50-1.

If I could get 50-1 in that situation, I’d be looking to bet a significant portion of my bankroll.

 

[BiochemPSU]

Of course you assume you have a chance of stopping them. We were pretty damn close to doing it so it obviously wasn't zero.

We went for two with 14:17 left in the 4th. That’s a crap ton of time left when you had already given up 38 points and the strategy relies on Oregon not getting any more points.

I get it if you are scoring and going for 2 with say 1:30 or less left in the 4th and the other team isn’t really trying to score after that, just trying to get a first down or kill clock. Then give yourself a shot at going for two twice, that makes sense. But that was way too early in the 4th and the wrong offensive team for Franklin to bust out that statistical Hail Mary, IMO.

 

[leinbacker]

Discounting everything else, if you’re going for two after one of your touchdowns (if the game will have one more score), which is better…

go for two after the second one…get it and win, miss it and lose

go for two after the first one…get it and win, miss it and you can try to get two after the second one to send it to overtime

But if you miss the first one, you lose a choice in the second one. The choice of going for the win or going to overtime. There is still a lot of game left and things can happen that provide more data points as to whether you want to go for win/OT later.

Making 2pt conversions isn't automatic, look at the situation PSU was in at the 2 minute mark - if they had scored the chance of OT is 50/50. So do you try to score quickly or do you milk the clock knowing there is a 50% chance you will still need another score (if you recover an onside kick).

 

[Erial_Lion]

Mina says it and the article says the same thing. It’s a gambling strategy to avoid overtime. It tries to give you better odds of winning in regulation. It probably assumes since you are down by 14 in the 4th you must suck compared to your opponent, so try and avoid overtime. Goofy momentum killing call in this instance that was not grounded in how easily Oregon was moving the ball and scoring.

it certainly doesn’t assume that you suck. It’s pretty basic math.

 

[Erial_Lion]

We went for two with 14:17 left in the 4th. That’s a crap ton of time left when you had already given up 38 points and the strategy relies on Oregon not getting any more points.

I get it if you are scoring and going for 2 with say 1:30 or less left in the 4th and the other team isn’t really trying to score after that, just trying to get a first down or kill clock. Then give yourself a shot at going for two twice, that makes sense. But that was way too early in the 4th and the wrong offensive team for Franklin to bust out that statistical Hail Mary, IMO.

It’s not a “statistical Hail Mary”…it’s a statistical “obvious decision”.

 

[CbusLion]

It's already been explained, but the decision to go for 2 would flow like this:

We are down 14 points in the 4th quarter.

We do not want to go into OT, our expected 2pt success rate is higher than our expected chances to win OT. This is reasonable. Especially given their QB and WRs

The defense needs to get a couple stops or the whole thing is moot, so decisions are made based on the defense stepping up some way somehow. It does NOT mean you expect to shut down oregon's offense, just that you HAVE TO slow them down enough to make up 14/15 points to even have a chance at winning the game. This is logical.

So you are going to get enough defensive stops in the 4th qtr to win (we did) and we wouldn't likely win in OT (fair) so we're down 14, going to try for 15 net points. Which requires at least one 2pt attempt. When is your best opportunity to call it? As early as possible in this scenario, which is what they did. I don't think it's automatically the right call depending on a few factors, but saying it's a "dumb call" has no legs.

And I'll just add here that if you give Penn State a Tez Johnson caliber WR, they are a top5 team in the country.

 

[Bvillebaron]

How does giving up a gimme point for a low odds 2-pt conversion increase your odds? Why not go for 1 then go for two if you get the touchdown to come within 1?

Missing it subtracts a bit from your odds of winning, probably substantially.

Oh I agree. Made no sense at all.

 

[Bvillebaron]

Discounting everything else, if you’re going for two after one of your touchdowns (if the game will have one more score), which is better…

go for two after the second one…get it and win, miss it and lose

go for two after the first one…get it and win, miss it and you can try to get two after the second one to send it to overtime

Or you kick the PAT after the first score and if you want to he gutsy go for 2 to win the game after the second TD

 

[Bvillebaron]

Mina says it and the article says the same thing. It’s a gambling strategy to avoid overtime. It tries to give you better odds of winning in regulation. It probably assumes since you are down by 14 in the 4th you must suck compared to your opponent, so try and avoid overtime. Goofy momentum killing call in this instance that was not grounded in how easily Oregon was moving the ball and scoring.

You could also avoid OT by kicking the PAT to make it a 7 point game after the first TD and going for 2 after the second one This analytics nonsense is complete BS.

 

[Bvillebaron]

I’m not serious that going for two was the right decision? It’s the right move 100 times out of 100.

No it’s a bonehead move 100 times out of 100.

 

[Bvillebaron]

I wonder what a game would look like if they flagged every hold on Carter? Probably borderline unwatchable

No actually the other teams would stop holding genius which is why holding is to be called in the first place.

 

[Bvillebaron]

Nessler: 'Well... he was interfering with the receiver but... eh... whatever.'

I had the sound off. Did he really say that?

 

[PhillyBillyReprise]

What was that? Secret reversal of catch?

I had the sound off. Did he really say that?

Yes

 

[LionsAndBears]

A few things:

1. Someone find CJF's Analytics Sheet and throw it away.
2. Our 2 turnovers were the difference
3. At 8.3 ypc we should have run on that final drive. We had plenty of time.