Down 9 and going for 2

“It’s far easier to understand the logic if I completely change the scenario.”

No $#it captain obvious.

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.
 
“It’s far easier to understand the logic if I completely change the scenario.”

No $#it captain obvious.

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.
 
But lengthening the game doest equal giving you the best chance. Most people assume it does so that's the route they go. It doesn't. The chance of making the 2 point conversion is the exact same no matter when you try it.
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
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
What you're giving Ferentz credit for
mqdefault.jpg


What I am giving him credit for.
london-zoo-uk-05th-jan-2015-squirrel-monkeys-help-with-the-counting-EDC8TA.jpg
 
Sorry PC but you are wrong the whole way around on this one. Listen to the Miller and Deace podcast, they address this very well actually. Total bone head move going for 2 for Iowa in that spot.

For once I agree with Dean. It made no sense to go for 2 in that situation.
 
What you're giving Ferentz credit for
mqdefault.jpg


What I am giving him credit for.
london-zoo-uk-05th-jan-2015-squirrel-monkeys-help-with-the-counting-EDC8TA.jpg

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.
 
I figured it had to have been quoted earlier, so I didn't quote it again. The funny thing is the exact situation that Iowa is in is actually quoted in here and actually proves my entire point:

  • 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).
They say right here that it very well might not exist at all in this situation. The only way it can be seen as an "advantage" to go for 2 when down 9 is they are giving a positive multiplier for knowing you are down 9 points or two scores. As PC proved, all you do is twist in the wind when trying to explain how you can actually do better offensively just by knowing you are down 2 scores rather than understanding you are still down 2 scores if you are down by 8.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.
 

Latest posts

Top