When you score a TD after being down 15 late, you go for 2 right away.

[Hump4Hoops]

I've seen so many bad takes on this. The 2 point conversation you will inevitably need to tie the game does not get easier just by waiting.

There's 2 benefits. A minor one is that, assuming you make it, you actually have the chance to go for 2 again for the outright win if you get your second TD.

Most importantly, assuming you have the same odds of making the 2pc no matter when you take it, making the attempt sooner gives you more information. You'll know right away if you're still down 2 scores, and can adjust your entire gameplan accordingly. Taking the extra point on the first TD is significantly riskier. You are committed to playing an entire defensive and offensive posession without knowing if you'll need an extra possession, essentially betting the farm on making the 2pc on the second TD, with no chance at a backup plan.

There is a clear advantage to going for 2 right away, and zero advantage for kicking the extra point. If you know you'll need a conversion at some point, "keeping the game alive" means absolutely nothing, and is handicapping yourself just because it "feels" righter.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

This logic has one key flaw. It assumes the opponent acts in the same manner regardless of the result of this first 2 point play. And that isn’t what happens. If the conversion is missed, how the offense plays the game is vastly different. Kicking it assures a 1 possession game. The offense has to take a lot more risk in trying to pick up first downs. The ball is likely to be thrown more. And the pressure on the offense and special teams greatly intensified. All of this increases the odds of a big defensive turnover, a blocked punt, etc. I’m not convinced the analytics take all this into account.

 

[paindonthurt]

It’s pretty clear. Math.

They have a sheet that says what the stats are. Follow the numbers.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Your situation of the opposing team playing different when up 2 scores compared to kicking a FG is the wrong comparison. Making the 2PC is what you compare to the XP - 1 score either way.

Missing the 2PC should be compared to the result of missing the 2PC of your second drive. If you miss that one, you likely lost because you are out of time anyway. The logic here is that if you are going to fail the 2PC anyway, you would rather fail early, because at least then you have more information and have at least a small chance.

There is a reason Lemonis applied the shift so often. Analytics guys aren't just pulling **** out of a hat.

 

[missouridawg]

I've seen so many bad takes on this. The 2 point conversation you will inevitably need to tie the game does not get easier just by waiting.

There's 2 benefits. A minor one is that, assuming you make it, you actually have the chance to go for 2 again for the outright win if you get your second TD.

Most importantly, assuming you have the same odds of making the 2pc no matter when you take it, making the attempt sooner gives you more information. You'll know right away if you're still down 2 scores, and can adjust your entire gameplan accordingly. Taking the extra point on the first TD is significantly riskier. You are committed to playing an entire defensive and offensive posession without knowing if you'll need an extra possession, essentially betting the farm on making the 2pc on the second TD, with no chance at a backup plan.

There is a clear advantage to going for 2 right away, and zero advantage for kicking the extra point. If you know you'll need a conversion at some point, "keeping the game alive" means absolutely nothing, and is handicapping yourself just because it "feels" righter.

I see the point and totally understand the logic about making it a one score game… but I’m 100% with you. I’d much rather go for two the first time so I know what path I have in front of me for winning. I’d much rather see the path and navigate it than to lose on a failed 2 pt attempt with 7 seconds left and no time to try something else.

 

[FlotownDawg]

Analytics don’t take human emotion into account. If Auburn kicks the PAT there, our buttholes would’ve puckered up big time knowing it’s a potential one score game. Offense plays ultra conservative, goes three and out and punts. Defense is nervous knowing it’s a one score game. As soon as they missed the 2 point conversion, it took all the pressure off. We could play freely. Offense moved the ball and set up a shortish FG attempt (which was of course missed) and defense could play freely without having to worry about one big play potentially tying the game, which led to the game ending fumble. Football is played by humans and analytics just boils everything down to numbers and percentages.

 

[Bulldogg31]

They’re both right.

When scoring a TD puts you within 9 points of the lead, going for 1 increases your chance of winning by 2.9%. Going for 2 increases chance of winning by 3.3%. Since both are within the SD it actually becomes just a judgement call, no advantage either way.

“When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

Analytics don’t take human emotion into account. If Auburn kicks the PAT there, our buttholes would’ve puckered up big time knowing it’s a potential one score game. Offense plays ultra conservative, goes three and out and punts. Defense is nervous knowing it’s a one score game. As soon as they missed the 2 point conversion, it took all the pressure off. We could play freely. Offense moved the ball and set up a shortish FG attempt (which was of course missed) and defense could play freely without having to worry about one big play potentially tying the game, which led to the game ending fumble. Football is played by humans and analytics just boils everything down to numbers and percentages.

This is it. Football isn’t played by robots. You should keep your players’ hopes alive as long as possible. Hope is powerful. Down 9 with little time remaining kills it.

ETA: not to mention the crowd. The energy in the stadium changes down 9.

 

[Bulldogg31]

It’s pretty clear. Math.

They have a sheet that says what the stats are. Follow the numbers.

The math in this case says, “I dunno, do whatever you want I guess?”

 

[Dawgzilla]

Its a judgment call, and there are way too many factors involved to say one option is better than the other.

Would you rather your game come down to a two point conversion, or a FG? If it's us, we're not going to make that FG, so kick the XP and put all your hope on 2 pt conversion later. If you don't like your odds on the 2, then go ahead and try now.

I was at the game with Auburn alums. As soon as Auburn scored I said they should go for 2. My buddies wanted to kick and pretty much convinced me they were right. Then the play was so awful they all felt vindicated somehow.

 

[paindonthurt]

Are we talking about Us going for 2 or them?

 

[thekimmer]

I agree with this logic…..

Analytics don’t take human emotion into account. If Auburn kicks the PAT there, our buttholes would’ve puckered up big time knowing it’s a potential one score game. Offense plays ultra conservative, goes three and out and punts. Defense is nervous knowing it’s a one score game. As soon as they missed the 2 point conversion, it took all the pressure off. We could play freely. Offense moved the ball and set up a shortish FG attempt (which was of course missed) and defense could play freely without having to worry about one big play potentially tying the game, which led to the game ending fumble. Football is played by humans and analytics just boils everything down to numbers and percentages.

It’s all about keeping pressure on the opponent. Especially at home. Make it a one score game keeps the crowd engaged and your opponent more likely to start over thinking.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Are we talking about Us going for 2 or them?

Either. When scoring a TD that cuts the lead to 9 (with less than 10 minutes left in the game) the analytics say it’s about 50/50 whether to kick or go for two.

 

[paindonthurt]

Someone was bitching abt us going to 2 at 28 to 23.

I thought this was an extension of that thread.

My apologies.

 

[patdog]

Down 9 late, I want to go for 2 now rather than later. I want to know if I need to score a TD to tie or a TD plus a FG to win. That affects how I use my time outs, how I call plays, and whether I go for it on 4th down or kick a FG on the next drive.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Analytics don’t take human emotion into account. If Auburn kicks the PAT there, our buttholes would’ve puckered up big time knowing it’s a potential one score game. Offense plays ultra conservative, goes three and out and punts. Defense is nervous knowing it’s a one score game. As soon as they missed the 2 point conversion, it took all the pressure off. We could play freely. Offense moved the ball and set up a shortish FG attempt (which was of course missed) and defense could play freely without having to worry about one big play potentially tying the game, which led to the game ending fumble. Football is played by humans and analytics just boils everything down to numbers and percentages.

This is the correct answer. It's the common sense answer.

 

[Bulldogg31]

Down 9 late, I want to go for 2 now rather than later. I want to know if I need to score a TD to tie or a TD plus a FG to win. That affects how I use my time outs, how I call plays, and whether I go for it on 4th down or kick a FG on the next drive.

I think you also have to consider how well your defense is playing. Are you likely to get one more possession or two? If it’s likely you’ll get one more possession I’d kick the XP.

You ever know what seeing your lead dwindle down to a one score game will do to a defense. Kids get nervous. Coaches get nervous. Mistakes are made.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Bulldogg31 is correct, at least according to 538. It's pretty damn close. Though anecdotally, I feel like everytime I see a team go for 2 at the end of the game to tie or win, the conversion fails with the exception of Kansas in OT last night.

I don't have the numbers, but is it possible a team's conversion percentages are significantly higher with 3 minutes left than in the final minute or less? As we talk about pressure, I would think that the team behind has more and more pressure that will drag down outcome success rates as the time on the clock decreases. Missing a conversion with 3 minutes left still leaves some miniscule hope. With 3 seconds all hope is lost.

Anyhow, here is the excerpt from a FiveThirtyEight article with the link below:

When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/

 

[patdog]

If you’ll only get 1 more possession, it doesn’t matter if you go for 2 down 9 now or down 2 later. You HAVE to make it either way.

I really don’t think it makes much difference. You’re fighting long odds either way.

 

[Bill Shankly]

Football is a game where emotion and momentum have huge impacts on the game. Going for two and not getting yesterday killed the momentum Auburn had from the score and it gave us a huge emotional boost. Now had they made it it would have done the exact opposite. Personally I would have kicked it. That would have made it a one score game and put enormous pressure on us and preserved hope for Auburn. The last three minutes would have been played quite differently by both sides.

 

[Drebin]

This is idiotic. You want the shortest path to winning the game. Kicking the extra point gives you a chance to tie the game with one more possession of you get a stop. Going for two guarantees that you'll need two more possessions if you don't make it. Going for 2 there only works if you convert it.

This is one of those things where knowledge of the game and common sense should supersede analytics. Hardin guaranteed our win yesterday by going for 2 and not making it...especially with the way our offense had gotten hot at that point.

 

[patdog]

We had two failed 2-point conversions and it didn’t do a thing to slow our momentum. Stopping the fake punt was a much bigger play than stopping the 2-point conversion.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I was that person bitching about it. It is much easier in football to get 2 points by kicking 2 PATs than it is getting 1 2pt conversion. The statistics for college football say 2pt conversion is between 40 - 50% success rate. That number also doesn't matter. What matters is your teams success rate. I don't think MSU's success rate of putting the ball in the endzone from inside the 5 is any where near 50%. So exactly what happened in the game is what analytically what should have happened. We got 2 less points by going for it each time in that stretch. Where PATs are at 98 or 99% you are much more likely to get the 2 points you desire.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Agree. There can't be an all encompassing analytics to tell a coach what his team should do? Any analytics has to be devised for that specific team and personnel at that time. The Alabama's and Ohio State's, teams with superior althletic talent will skew an overall number. They might be successful 60% of the time where MSU is successful 40%. So there can't be a fixed chart or thought process to either question.

It's like 3pt shot in Basketball. There is a league overall stat. But when you have Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, and Klay Thompson your stats are better than the league average.

 

[Msubulldogfan1]

Either. When scoring a TD that cuts the lead to 9 (with less than 10 minutes left in the game) the analytics say it’s about 50/50 whether to kick or go for two.

I’ve wondered, do the analytics take into account individual teams?

Like team a has a better chance at converting a 4th down or 2pt conversion against team B rather than team C…but the numbers dictate you go for it against either team…because that would be dumb.

 

[Msubulldogfan1]

Agree. There can't be an all encompassing analytics to tell a coach what his team should do? Any analytics has to be devised for that specific team and personnel at that time. The Alabama's and Ohio State's, teams with superior althletic talent will skew an overall number. They might be successful 60% of the time where MSU is successful 40%. So there can't be a fixed chart or thought process to either question.

It's like 3pt shot in Basketball. There is a league overall stat. But when you have Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, and Klay Thompson your stats are better than the league average.

Yes this is what I was getting at, you explained it well. The analytics in baseball and basketball work totally different than in football I would assume. More variables in football.

 

[CookieMonster.sixpack]

Another way to look at it is that, in theory, XP’s are free points. You should always take free points unless it’s the point in the game where they absolutely cannot help you. If we’d just kicked XP’s we’d have already been 2 scores up.

 

[Drebin]

Yes this is what I was getting at, you explained it well. The analytics in baseball and basketball work totally different than in football I would assume. More variables in football.

Also more momentum swings. If Auburn kicks the extra point and is only down 8, it puts pressure on our offense and changes how Leach calls plays, increasing the chances of getting a stop and getting the ball back. Analytics don't take stuff like this into account.

 

[patdog]

Going for 2 there only works if you convert it.

No ****. It also only works if you make it if you wait until the next TD & you’re down 2. The difference is, if you fail earlier, you give yourself more time to work with.

 

[Bill Shankly]

We had two failed 2-point conversions and it didn’t do a thing to slow our momentum. Stopping the fake punt was a much bigger play than stopping the 2-point conversion.

I thought we were talking about the specific situation Auburn found themselves in late in the game. Earlier in the game its a completely different situation.

 

[Drebin]

Going for 2 there only works if you convert it.

No ****. It also only works if you make it if you wait until the next TD & you’re down 2. The difference is, if you fail earlier, you give yourself more time to work with.

You are missing the point. If it doesn't work, the game is over. You're not giving yourself your best chance to win.

You say that you need a conversion either way, so try it early. Well I would counter that you need a defensive stop either way. So make it a one possession game where that defensive stop you need actually gives you a chance to tie the game. Getting two defensive stops against a hot offense is far less likely.

And you're not giving yourself more time to work with. There's 3:30 on the clock whether you're down 8 or 9. It's a much tougher hill to climb down 9.

There are differences of opinion and we can all agree to disagree on those. But honest to goodness, I don't know how anyone with a speck of intelligence can argue that going for 2 in that situation yesterday was the right call. That decision cemented our win and the Auburn fan base is rightly flummoxed by it.

 

[patdog]

I get your point. It’s just wrong. The later you miss the 2-point conversion, the less options you have and the more “over” the game is. If I’ve got to score two more times, I want to know that up front & not wait till there’s very little time remaining.

 

[Drebin]

I get your point. It’s just wrong. The later you miss the 2-point conversion, the less options you have and the more “over” the game is. If I’ve got to score two more times, I want to know that up front & not wait till there’s very little time remaining.

Well I hope every other coach in the SEC thinks like you because it's idiotic and it will pay off for us more often than not. It sure as hell did yesterday.

 

[patdog]

Only difference if Auburn had kicked the point is they would have probably kicked off deep & the game would have ended with us at midfield instead of the 5-yard line.

 

[Drebin]

Only difference if Auburn had kicked the point is they would have probably kicked off deep & the game would have ended with us at midfield instead of the 5-yard line.

They would have kicked off with three timeouts, a hostile crowd behind them, and most importantly, a chance. We would've gone conservative to run clock and would have ended up punting to them with about 2 minutes left. Then our defense would get a 4th down stop, but catch a BS defensive holding penalty that sets them up for the tying score.

In other words, more opportunities for Auburn.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

You're treating analytics like some sort of opaque sorcery.

It's just statistical analysis. There's no artistic interpretation going on here, it's all numbers. You are factually wrong.

 

[patdog]

Your making a LOT of wild assumptions there. We went conservative as it was & they couldn’t stop us. They hadn’t stopped us since mid 2nd quarter & their DL was gassed. That game was over either way.

 

[Bulldogg31]

I get your point. It’s just wrong. The later you miss the 2-point conversion, the less options you have and the more “over” the game is. If I’ve got to score two more times, I want to know that up front & not wait till there’s very little time remaining.

Again, the stats say this is incorrect. It’s a 50/50 tossup whether you go for one or two, inside of 10 minutes left in the game when down 9 points.

As to the question of whether a team’s individual stats matter, I’d say that they would only matter if you had a statistically meaningful set of data, such as “we have 20 examples of where we’ve gone for two with less than ten minutes left and we are 55% successful.” A regular fourth down and 3 isn’t the same because you might be on the 50 instead of the three yard line. I’m not sure any team will have enough data to make a statistical change based on their own results.

 

[campshelbydog842003]

I've seen so many bad takes on this. The 2 point conversation you will inevitably need to tie the game does not get easier just by waiting.

There's 2 benefits. A minor one is that, assuming you make it, you actually have the chance to go for 2 again for the outright win if you get your second TD.

Most importantly, assuming you have the same odds of making the 2pc no matter when you take it, making the attempt sooner gives you more information. You'll know right away if you're still down 2 scores, and can adjust your entire gameplan accordingly. Taking the extra point on the first TD is significantly riskier. You are committed to playing an entire defensive and offensive posession without knowing if you'll need an extra possession, essentially betting the farm on making the 2pc on the second TD, with no chance at a backup plan.

There is a clear advantage to going for 2 right away, and zero advantage for kicking the extra point. If you know you'll need a conversion at some point, "keeping the game alive" means absolutely nothing, and is handicapping yourself just because it "feels" righter.

You are 100 % correct. This is common sense type
stuff.

 

[dog12]

Going for 2 there only works if you convert it.

No ****. It also only works if you make it if you wait until the next TD & you’re down 2. The difference is, if you fail earlier, you give yourself more time to work with.

It seems to me that if you're down by 9 with 3 minutes left and you go for 2 and don't convert, then the game is already over (because you have almost no chance of getting 2 more possessions).

Conversely, if you kick the extra point, then you are still in the game (because you will likely get 1 more possession).

I'd rather keep hope alive for the chance to put it all on that late 2-pointer.

How many times have we seen a team go for 2 at the end of regulation, make it to tie the game, and then win the game in OT? (I'm fairly certain I've seen this happen several times, although I can't recall any off the top of my head).

On the other hand, how many times have we seen a team down by 9 late in the game (3 minutes or less), go for 2 and either make it or miss it, and then end up winning the game? (Surely this has happened at least once, but I can't remember it ever happening.)