I think it's easier to play against a defense that has the comfort of knowing they are up 2 scores. So I disagree that your last sentence is an argument for your side. The rest makes perfect sense other than I think bone headed is wrong.
Down 9 and going for 2
- Thread starter enosmohawk
- Start date
I think it's easier to play against a defense that has the comfort of knowing they are up 2 scores. So I disagree that your last sentence is an argument for your side. The rest makes perfect sense other than I think bone headed is wrong.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I knew you and I could come to a reasonable conclusion to this.
83Hawk
Banned
I have pointed this out several times but will do so one final time:
You always want to get to a one possession game ALWAYS. And despite what PC says, 8 points is a one possession game...it doesn't matter what the chances of converting the 2 is...it is still a one possession game.
Now, let's assume (since I don't know the actual figures) the odds of successfully kicking the xp is 90%, and converting the 2 is 60%. Since the goal is to get to a one possession game, the MATH says you take the option that gives you the BEST odds of getting the one possession game. That is to kick. 50% better, using my figures. You make the kick, you KNOW you need one possession. You miss, then you KNOW you need 2 possessions.
This nonsense PC keeps throwing out about the last play of the game is pure smokescreen. It is totally irrelevant because you already KNOW after the kick if you need one or two possessions. It is an absolute FACT that only needing to score once (and convert the 2) is better than needing 2 scores. ALWAYS.
Yes, you can gamble on the 2 point conversion first....but you have a mathematically better chance of getting to the one possession game by kicking. Period.
You always want to get to a one possession game ALWAYS. And despite what PC says, 8 points is a one possession game...it doesn't matter what the chances of converting the 2 is...it is still a one possession game.
Now, let's assume (since I don't know the actual figures) the odds of successfully kicking the xp is 90%, and converting the 2 is 60%. Since the goal is to get to a one possession game, the MATH says you take the option that gives you the BEST odds of getting the one possession game. That is to kick. 50% better, using my figures. You make the kick, you KNOW you need one possession. You miss, then you KNOW you need 2 possessions.
This nonsense PC keeps throwing out about the last play of the game is pure smokescreen. It is totally irrelevant because you already KNOW after the kick if you need one or two possessions. It is an absolute FACT that only needing to score once (and convert the 2) is better than needing 2 scores. ALWAYS.
Yes, you can gamble on the 2 point conversion first....but you have a mathematically better chance of getting to the one possession game by kicking. Period.
I've known how both sides make sense since page one. Its most of your points that didn't make sense.
DJI9424
Well-Known Member
At the risk of extending this discussion, let me make a few points. First, let's set the stage by providing the known information:
1. Iowa just scored a touchdown, they are 9 points down with just over one minute to play.
2. Iowa's offense has been poor for most of the game, Stanley has been sacked 6 times and completed 16 of 33 passes for an average of 11.0 yards per completion.
3. The running game has averaged 2.2 yards per carry in 38 attempts.
The Assumptions:
1. 2 point conversions are successfully executed 47% of the time (I am not challenging this as an overall average).
2. Iowa's offense is not average, they are well below average, thus the 47% average does not apply to Iowa's chances, especially in this game.
3. Given the time remaining, the probability of getting two more possessions is infinitesimal. So, you must preserve the possibility of a one possession game.
4. The best chance of preserving the one possession game is to kick the PAT because the risk of failure is significantly lower than the risk of failing to execute the 2 point conversion.
5. The game is at home, and if Iowa can play for a tie in regulation, they will have the advantage in overtime because of the crowd and the momentum from scoring their last two possessions. Thus, you play for the tie in regulation and plan to win in overtime.
The Logic:
1. Logically, you choose your course of action such that you have the best chance of ultimately winning the game. Admittedly, it is highly remote but you work your way through the possibilities and choose the one that's most favorable.
2. If you choose to attempt the 2 point conversion after the first TD and fail, you have effectively lost the game because you will not get two more possessions, given the time remaining.
3. If you kick the PAT (almost a certainty), you are still within one possession of a tie game. Of course, a lot of conditions must be true for that to happen but there is a remote possibility that you recover the onside kick and score a second TD in that last minute of regulation and complete the 2 point conversion.
Reasoning (rationale) versus Logic
I understand the reasoning of knowing what you need to do, but that should not be conflated with logic. Logic is not based on feel or intuition, it is objective and determined based on known information, and in this case, the most important aspect is the time remaining. Gambling on turning a potential one possession game into a certain two possession game is NOT logical. Saying it another way, knowing that you now need to score twice instead of once does not place your team in a better position to win, on the contrary, you have effectively guaranteed a loss because the time remaining is the key determinant. Finally, any analogy adding time to the clock materially changes the situation, and as such, is irrelevant to this particular game.
1. Iowa just scored a touchdown, they are 9 points down with just over one minute to play.
2. Iowa's offense has been poor for most of the game, Stanley has been sacked 6 times and completed 16 of 33 passes for an average of 11.0 yards per completion.
3. The running game has averaged 2.2 yards per carry in 38 attempts.
The Assumptions:
1. 2 point conversions are successfully executed 47% of the time (I am not challenging this as an overall average).
2. Iowa's offense is not average, they are well below average, thus the 47% average does not apply to Iowa's chances, especially in this game.
3. Given the time remaining, the probability of getting two more possessions is infinitesimal. So, you must preserve the possibility of a one possession game.
4. The best chance of preserving the one possession game is to kick the PAT because the risk of failure is significantly lower than the risk of failing to execute the 2 point conversion.
5. The game is at home, and if Iowa can play for a tie in regulation, they will have the advantage in overtime because of the crowd and the momentum from scoring their last two possessions. Thus, you play for the tie in regulation and plan to win in overtime.
The Logic:
1. Logically, you choose your course of action such that you have the best chance of ultimately winning the game. Admittedly, it is highly remote but you work your way through the possibilities and choose the one that's most favorable.
2. If you choose to attempt the 2 point conversion after the first TD and fail, you have effectively lost the game because you will not get two more possessions, given the time remaining.
3. If you kick the PAT (almost a certainty), you are still within one possession of a tie game. Of course, a lot of conditions must be true for that to happen but there is a remote possibility that you recover the onside kick and score a second TD in that last minute of regulation and complete the 2 point conversion.
Reasoning (rationale) versus Logic
I understand the reasoning of knowing what you need to do, but that should not be conflated with logic. Logic is not based on feel or intuition, it is objective and determined based on known information, and in this case, the most important aspect is the time remaining. Gambling on turning a potential one possession game into a certain two possession game is NOT logical. Saying it another way, knowing that you now need to score twice instead of once does not place your team in a better position to win, on the contrary, you have effectively guaranteed a loss because the time remaining is the key determinant. Finally, any analogy adding time to the clock materially changes the situation, and as such, is irrelevant to this particular game.
Last edited:
83Hawk
Banned
Very well put. Not that it will change PJ's mind, but nicely done nonetheless.
I don't understand why people keep saying "if you miss the 2 point conversion first, you take yourself out of the game". Its too easy to reply "if you try it second and miss, you take yourself out of the game". Then you guys respond "but at least you had a chance". Then I respond "we did have a chance, we just missed it.
People keep thinking Kirk took away our chance. He didn't take it away, we just took that exact same chance early.
DJI9424
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if I can make it any plainer than this: Because of the limited period of time left in the game, you will only have ONE more opportunity to possess the ball, and that presumes you recover the onside kick. If you play the much riskier option and go for 2 when you are 9 points down and fail, the game is over, you have no chance to win. So, in order for your next possession to be meaningful, you have to keep the possibility of tying the game in play, thus you kick the PAT and live for the next possession.
If you fail on converting the 2 point try after scoring the first touchdown, you have NO expectation of having 2 more possessions, thus the game is decided at that point (unless you fail to recover the onside kick but are somehow able to push Purdue back across their own endzone, thus scoring a 2 point safety and receiving the ball again, which is beyond anyone's belief, even for the most ridiculously optimistic fan).
As 83Hawk said above, when you are behind, a one possession game is ALWAYS preferable to a two possession game, especially when the time remaining is very limited. And that is exactly the situation Iowa was in. Logically, there is one best answer and that is to extend the game with the possibility of one more possession, anything else is not logically preferable.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
The theme seems to be that people want to delay the outcome as long as possible.
The only tolerable reason to move up when a game is decided, is when there is a very clear statistical advantage to do so.
There is no logical reason for this. Just the emotions of the fans involved.
I don't get the anger over this. You have to go for 2 at some point. Not like we were going to surprise them. The subsequent kickoff didn't work anyway, so it would have kept us in it for about 1 minute of tv commercials.
Who f-ing cares!!! You have to go at some point. And the subsequent kickoff didn't succeed but I am sure if they would have just kicked for 1 point that darn old kick would have been recovered by Iowa. F-ing dumb!
I prefer as a fan to not have my heart ripped out on the last play of the game like the Penn State game. I say let's get that less than 50/50 chance out of the way before I get re-emotionally invested into the game. That way, if we convert, then get the touchdown, we get to ot 100% of the time. That's way better than doing all that, just to get your heart broke over half the time.
This post is only half serious.
theboat
Well-Known Member
It’s the butterfly effect. Iowa is probably national champs by now in an alternate timeline where they kick d the XP
theboat
Well-Known Member
And not getting it left our chances at next to zero. So what?
Which is equal to what our chances are of missing it later. Making it at either time are equal odds too. I just think people forget that we had a chance to make it. They keep forgetting to add it into their math.
theboat
Well-Known Member
Not at all. I am absolutely factoring that in.
Kick it? 5% risk of game being over, 95% still alive.
Go for it? 60% chance game is over, 40% still alive.
We don’t gain enough for the risk at that particular point. Yes we would have to convert later, but the risk in the initial decision far outweighs the reward.
This has nothing to do with the 2 point conversion deal, but have you ever heard the whole "go for 2 if you're down 14" theory? It's pretty cool and would give you a big statistical advantage if you would do it.
Pretty much of you kick the PAT twice and get to ot, you win 50% of the time. If you go for 2 after the first td and get it, you win in regulation just under 50% of the time. Of you don't get it, you have a chance to get the second one. Of you get neither, you cost yourself a chance at ot. But since the chance of getting neither is significantly worse than the chance of getting the first one, it is well worth the risk.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
You can't avoid the risk. You can delay the risk by 60 seconds of football.
Let's say you take all your money and buy lotto tickets in hopes of hitting it big. An all or nothing bet to become rich.
Do you play on the Thursday? Or the Friday? Because for some reason, if you said Thursday and lost, do you think the problem was the day of the week you played?
