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

[dog12]

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.

What exactly do you mean when you say "it's a 50/50 tossup?"

Do we have stats that tell us how often a team wins the game when that team is down by 9 points after scoring a TD with 5 or fewer minutes left in the game and goes for 2?

And do those stats tell us how often a team wins the game when that team is down by 9 points after scoring a TD with 5 or fewer minutes left in the game and attempts the extra point?

 

[Bulldogg31]

What exactly do you mean when you say "it's a 50/50 tossup?"

Do we have stats that tell us how often a team wins the game when that team is down by 9 points after scoring a TD with 5 or fewer minutes left in the game and goes for 2?

And do those stats tell us how often a team wins the game when that team is down by 9 points after scoring a TD with 5 or fewer minutes left in the game and attempts the extra point?

Yeah, just like every other measurable event in sports people have gathered data on whether to go for 1 or 2 based on score, time remaining, etc. The 538 example I linked above is a good example and it says that when you’re down by 9 late in a game converting a PAT raises your odds of winning the game by 2.9%. Converting a 2-point try raises your odds of winning by 3.3%, making it essentially a 50/50 proposition to go for 2 or not.

In my mind that would lead me to take the PAT first, then play for the 2-point try later, especially if there’s a chance I might only get the ball back once. I can definitely understand the argument for the 2-point try though, especially if it works.

 

[Go Budaw]

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.

How you use your timeouts shouldn’t change. Using timeouts on defense is always the best call, and countless college football coaches don’t understand this. You have 3 ways on offense to stop the clock without calling a timeout….first down, spike / incompletion, and out of bounds. ZERO ways to do it on defense besides the TO. You put the onus on your opponent to change their thought process on what plays they are running when you call them on defense….putting pressure on them.

Playcalling isn’t going to significantly change either. Either way, you are only going to be passing using out routes, sideline area check downs, and nothing in the middle of the field that is more shallow than 10 yards, unless there is an open QB running lane to get out of bounds or first down or both. In the end, its 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other according to the numbers. Your chances aren’t great either way. Go for 2 if you have a play that you feel highly confident in against whatever look the defense is giving you. Otherwise kick the PAT and get the 2 point conversion later.

 

[Bulldogg31]

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.

I see what you did there. Well played.

I do think folks underestimate the effect on a defense (and the coaching staff) of all
a sudden being back in a one-score game after having a big lead. The pucker factor can go up big time.

 

[HumpDawgy]

I usually go for 2 immediately after my morning coffee. Sometimes I will wait until mid morning, if I'm feeling lucky.

 

[Go Budaw]

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.

You don’t have any options either way. If you miss the 2 point conversion with 3 minutes to go, you are down 9 without the ball….and have no chance. If you miss the 2 PT with 30 seconds to go to tie it, you are down one score without the ball….and have no chance. Either way you have to have an onside kick recovery. The whole thing of “at least you know you have to score twice” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You made yourself have to score twice by not taking the easy points. There is no benefit to that added information that changes the playcalling or decision making in any meaningful way, which is why the statistical odds of one vs the other are basically the same.

Its like a team down 7 with a minute to go in a basketball game heaving a contested 3 instead of an easy layup, missing it, then saying “we’ll now at least I know I need 3 buckets for sure”. That doesn’t make any sense or add any benefit.

 

[johnson86-1]

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.

He's wrong to be absolute, but it's pretty clear by common sense and (if you believe them) the stats, that the options are pretty similar. I like going for one and putting pressure on the defense knowing that it's a one score game. But if you make the 2 point conversion, there's even more pressure on the defense. If you don't make it, you do at least give yourself another path to win that would not be there if you wait and fail the 2 point conversion; you just make it much easier for the defense.

One thing that would make me lean towards the 2pt conversion is if I thought the DC would go into prevent defense up two scores. Then you can feel a lot better about picking up yardage in chunks on your next drive, and it will probably ultimately come down to recovering an onside kick.