That's what's annoying about this. Shit that was used to reply to another post is taken out of context later. This has been a long conversation so lots of different things were said and responded to. Dean has given different examples of situations that has nothing to do with this one, to help prove a point. It helps to paint pictures.
Down 9 and going for 2
- Thread starter enosmohawk
- Start date
That's what's annoying about this. Shit that was used to reply to another post is taken out of context later. This has been a long conversation so lots of different things were said and responded to. Dean has given different examples of situations that has nothing to do with this one, to help prove a point. It helps to paint pictures.
Boat you said you get it with more time left so we can be done. If you really think it makes sense with a few minutes left, but is the dumbest decision of all time with 1, then we can simply disagree.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Purely statistical in a vacuum? No it doesn’t. But you lengthen the game because it gives you more opportunities for something to go right or something to go wrong with the other team. Same logic to fouling in basketball
theboat
Well-Known Member
Time is the ultimate variable though in this situation so you are discarding the most important part of the scenario. With time for only one more possession you make it a one possession game.
A better example in basketball. Up 3 points with 5 seconds left? Foul so they get 2 FTs. But if you change the time to 20 seconds then fouling intentionally would be silly. Same 3 points. Same free throw percentage. Different time. Arguing that the time is irrelevant makes no sense.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I can't believe you guys are still arguing over this. I see the logic in going for 2 when down 9, I've spelled it out for everyone, and some still don't grasp it. It reminds me when saber-metrics first came out in baseball, many didn't grasp it at first either and there were World Series managers that disagreed with it. No matter which way you slice it going for 2 points is a coin flip, we can all agree on that. For me I'd rather flip that coin as early as I can so I know exactly where I stand and what I have to get, others say "no, I'd rather wait to flip that coin until the very end". Either way it's still a coin flip, so let's just find some common ground and move on. Peoples minds are not getting changed here on either side.
I know and have agreed many times with that little time left it really doesn't matter. But it doesn't matter the other way either. Does extending the game make it more likely to get the onside kick? No. Does extending the game make it more likely to drive for a td? No. (I would argue it will actually be harder to score next, which could help score faster for a miracle onside kick). Does extending the game make it more likely to convert the 2 pt play later? No.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Again , in a vacuum, no.
But with emotions of 20 year olds on both sides and added pressure or hope, maybe.
Kirk successfully killed the hope of the players like he has to us fans for years.
Finding out you are for sure going to lose sucks. Fans and coaches would do anything to delay that feeling. Even at the detriment of the team.
And that emotional aspect I didn't think of at the very beginning of this convo made me go from obvious choice one way, to it really doesn't matter either way. I learned something from this convo on the first page. Even with 1 minute left, you can throw one 15 yard pass, kick a field goal, and be set up for another onside kick with 50 seconds left, this time to win the game instead of tie. Is that advantage worth forfeiting the emotional aspect? For me, I don't care either way because it's too close to care.
theboat
Well-Known Member
For once I agree with Dean. It made no sense to go for 2 in that situation.
theboat
Well-Known Member
At least now Dean will understand that he's wrong. Thanks for helping my point twins!
What you're giving Ferentz credit for
What I am giving him credit for.
There is probably a better chance he kicked his way to the "right" decision than actually thought it through. But didn't he hire a guy to teach him this aspect of the game? I thought I read that somewhere. If so, maybe it was that guy's idea and Kirk went with it even tho with that amount of time, it really didn't matter.
At least you've went from "boneheaded decision" earlier in the thread to trying to argue that going for two is not a significant advantage.
I wondered that to. KF seems to be going for it much more this year. I thought I heard during the Purdue game we are 12 of 16 on 4th downs this year. Also throw in the 2nd quarter onside kick, fake punts and fake field goals and KF is trying to use game theory.
theboat
Well-Known Member
That is what makes it a boneheaded decision in my mind. You risk losing all chance to win for no significant advantage. All risk, no reward
And I get that. You would rather take a 50% risk on the last play them take the same risk later, even tho one doesn't make it more likely to win than the other. I see nothing wrong with that, as long as the "no significance" is as close zero as possible. To me, that's more of a personal preference thing.
If anything now, he chooses the too aggressive decision sometimes. To me, I like it, just because it's a nice change. But it is better to just choose the right decision.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
No I still think it is a boneheaded decision. I just realize this is for more “intangible” reasons. The math of it is you have to go for 2 once and take and XP once. So mathematically speaking it is the same.
It is boneheaded because every non math reason says you should kick the XP. Psychologically both the offense and defense then know the game isn’t in essence over. That gives the offense a boost and keeps the defense on its heels. A defense can play completely different if it knows it has a 2 score lead.
