Down 9 and going for 2

[SamBrownlee48]

I will add that the chances of Iowa making a 2 point conversion are about 5%. So if I was Kirk and down 14, I wouldn't try it.

Where are you coming up with that stat? In general, the odds of converting a 2 pt. conversion are about 47.5% according to 538 analytics. While it might be that Iowa's offense has less than the average chance to convert 2, I'd be surprised to find out that Iowa has 42.5% less of a chance than the average team given their red zone targets at TE.

 

[DJI9424]

No, you're forgetting the scenarios where you tie when going for two and win in overtime. It's all in Gohawks post.

No, I'm not forgetting anything. And Gohawks does not have all possible scenarios factored into his example because you can also tie the game by kicking two PATs. The probability of successfully doing that is 90.25% and if that is accomplished, you now have a 50/50 chance of winning by entering into overtime, which is a better probability than the 2 PAT route. If you believe the assumptions, that is the preferable route, and bottom line, you do what gives you the best chance of winning the game, taking all options into account, not by assuming you can only start from the 2 PAT after first TD.

Everything in his example is conditional on attempting the 2 PAT after the first touchdown, and then making your subsequent decision based on how many points you need to win or tie. So the tricky thing that must be taken into account is how do you combine the probability of winning the game outright in regulation by going for 2 PAT after the first TD with the probability of winning the game in overtime. I maintain you cannot add the probabilities as he did to arrive at your overall chances of winning. In other words, each outcome (regulation and overtime) stands on its own, they cannot be combined as additive probabilities because the win in overtime is a conditional probability. The 27.26% chance of finishing a tie game is now a given (under the initial 2 PAT constraint), it cannot simply be combined with the regulation winning percentage.

I will concede the 2 PAT route is preferable if you want to decide the outcome in regulation, but because the probability of converting the 2 PAT is less than 50%, it is inferior to playing for the tie if you are looking for the best overall chance of ultimately winning the game (under the assumption your chance of winning in OT is 50/50).

 

[PCHawk]

Where are you coming up with that stat? In general, the odds of converting a 2 pt. conversion are about 47.5% according to 538 analytics. While it might be that Iowa's offense has less than the average chance to convert 2, I'd be surprised to find out that Iowa has 42.5% less of a chance than the average team given their red zone targets at TE.

It was a joke about how bad Iowa's offense is. Although if you figured up all their 2 pt tries it the last 5 years, then set the over/under at 25%, I might take the under.

 

[PCHawk]

No, I'm not forgetting anything. And Gohawks does not have all possible scenarios factored into his example because you can also tie the game by kicking two PATs. The probability of successfully doing that is 90.25% and if that is accomplished, you now have a 50/50 chance of winning by entering into overtime, which is a better probability than the 2 PAT route. If you believe the assumptions, that is the preferable route, and bottom line, you do what gives you the best chance of winning the game, taking all options into account, not by assuming you can only start from the 2 PAT after first TD.

Everything in his example is conditional on attempting the 2 PAT after the first touchdown, and then making your subsequent decision based on how many points you need to win or tie. So the tricky thing that must be taken into account is how do you combine the probability of winning the game outright in regulation by going for 2 PAT after the first TD with the probability of winning the game in overtime. I maintain you cannot add the probabilities as he did to arrive at your overall chances of winning. In other words, each outcome (regulation and overtime) stands on its own, they cannot be combined as additive probabilities because the win in overtime is a conditional probability. The 27.26% chance of finishing a tie game is now a given (under the initial 2 PAT constraint), it cannot simply be combined with the regulation winning percentage.

I will concede the 2 PAT route is preferable if you want to decide the outcome in regulation, but because the probability of converting the 2 PAT is less than 50%, it is inferior to playing for the tie if you are looking for the best overall chance of ultimately winning the game (under the assumption your chance of winning in OT is 50/50).

I'm really surprised you aren't getting this. If you put the odds of a PAT at 100% for easy math, you will win the game exactly 50% of the time by kicking PATs. That is a little generous but who cares at this point.

If you go for 2 the first time, you win the game in regulation 40some percent of the time. When you don't get it the other 50 some percent, you go for it again on the second one. You will get that one 40 some percent of the time and go to ot where you will win half of the time. None of this can be argued and you seem to be a smart enough guy so jist think about it again.

 

[PCHawk]

So you don't think you can put a percentage on your odds of converting 1 two point conversion if you have 2 attempts? Is that what you are saying?

 

[DJI9424]

So you don't think you can put a percentage on your odds of converting 1 two point conversion if you have 2 attempts? Is that what you are saying?

You can put odds on anything, but there are all kinds of variables to take into account, and the global 47% average is only a starting point. Like any "average", it cannot be uniformly applied to all teams because some teams are better than average and some are worse. And if I was betting I would take the under for the 2017 version of Iowa's football team.

So, if they failed on the first 2 PAT, I would adjust my expectations of successfully completing the second (assuming they can score a second TD) to be even lower. Play calling, confidence, momentum, crowd enthusiasm would all factor in, but given Iowa's overall inconsistency, I would be hard pressed to place their chances at better than 30%.

 

[PCHawk]

You can put odds on anything, but there are all kinds of variables to take into account, and the global 47% average is only a starting point. Like any "average", it cannot be uniformly applied to all teams because some teams are better than average and some are worse. And if I was betting I would take the under for the 2017 version of Iowa's football team.

So, if they failed on the first 2 PAT, I would adjust my expectations of successfully completing the second (assuming they can score a second TD) to be even lower. Play calling, confidence, momentum, crowd enthusiasm would all factor in, but given Iowa's overall inconsistency, I would be hard pressed to place their chances at better than 30%.

Yea like I said, I wouldn't do it if I was Iowa. But every coach should have an idea on what their team's make percentage is on them. If you do the math right on this equation, you would jave to have a pretty low number to not be worth it. I wonder if gohawks wants to fudge with his equation to see what the percentage has to be to stop being worth it.

 

[uihawk82]

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.

All very well put but I would guess most kickers kick PATs at better than 95% level and as challenged as Iowa's offense has been the last two weeks I would say their chance of getting a 2 PT conversion is less than 50%. Remember they didnt convert any third downs against Wisky and few against Purdue.

 

[GoHawks12345]

I agree on his calculations regarding the probabilities of winning or losing in regulation (although I believe the % for 1 PAT is higher than 95% and the % for 2 PAT is lower, especially for Iowa), but not on adding the probability of winning in regulation with the probability of winning in overtime (after the game has ended in a tie) to arrive at the overall probability of winning.

Think about this again.

It's where you are going wrong.

 

[uihawk82]

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.

PCHAWK, please listen to your own words... You say you want to go for the 2 pt conversion because, your words, "we did have a chance, we just missed it.". BUT PC dont you realize logically that your 2 pt conversion try had way less of a chance of being good, maybe 33-40%, compared to kicking the PAT about 95%. AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, AS I HAVE SAID, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

And really like everyone on here who has taken the view opposite of yours as said, the outcome of making either the PAT or 2 PT conversion does the same thing , they both get you within one score with 60 seconds to go. But one is much easier to get at this point in the game. Kick the extra point then if it happens that the onside kick is recovered and you get the TD you know you have go for 2 PTs (but you have had about 5 minutes to think of your best play).

Now you are either very stubborn, trolling us and laughing at all of us responding to your crazy thinking, or you do not want to believe what Matt Millen, Eddie Pololak, and most everyone who knows football says to do in this situation.

PC, are you really Kirk Ferentz???

 

[GoHawks12345]

PCHAWK, please listen to your own words... You say you want to go for the 2 pt conversion because, your words, "we did have a chance, we just missed it.". BUT PC dont you realize logically that your 2 pt conversion try had way less of a chance of being good, maybe 33-40%, compared to kicking the PAT about 95%. AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, AS I HAVE SAID, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

There is no "at this stage of the game".

We needed 3 things, in any order. A two point, onside kick, extra point FG. All three, you get overtime.

Any order. Circumstances dictate that the onside kick occurs between the extra point and a two point conversion attempt.

Otherwise, any order. Fail at any one, you lose.

No moral victories losing on the last second of the game, versus at the 1 minute mark. Although technically you still have a pray at the 1 minute mark. Just not much of one.

 

[SamBrownlee48]

PCHAWK, please listen to your own words... You say you want to go for the 2 pt conversion because, your words, "we did have a chance, we just missed it.". BUT PC dont you realize logically that your 2 pt conversion try had way less of a chance of being good, maybe 33-40%, compared to kicking the PAT about 95%. AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, AS I HAVE SAID, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

And really like everyone on here who has taken the view opposite of yours as said, the outcome of making either the PAT or 2 PT conversion does the same thing , they both get you within one score with 60 seconds to go. But one is much easier to get at this point in the game. Kick the extra point then if it happens that the onside kick is recovered and you get the TD you know you have go for 2 PTs (but you have had about 5 minutes to think of your best play).

Now you are either very stubborn, trolling us and laughing at all of us responding to your crazy thinking, or you do not want to believe what Matt Millen, Eddie Pololak, and most everyone who knows football says to do in this situation.

PC, are you really Kirk Ferentz???

Wrong. The outcome of making either the PAT or the 2pt is not the same. If you make the PAT, you still need a TD and a 2pt. If you make the 2pt, you only need a score and a PAT.

The advantage of choosing to do the 2pt first is the superior knowledge you have if you miss it vs. if you miss it with less time left.

Also, using Millen's opinion to support your argument? Really?

 

[PCHawk]

PCHAWK, please listen to your own words... You say you want to go for the 2 pt conversion because, your words, "we did have a chance, we just missed it.". BUT PC dont you realize logically that your 2 pt conversion try had way less of a chance of being good, maybe 33-40%, compared to kicking the PAT about 95%. AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, AS I HAVE SAID, YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

And really like everyone on here who has taken the view opposite of yours as said, the outcome of making either the PAT or 2 PT conversion does the same thing , they both get you within one score with 60 seconds to go. But one is much easier to get at this point in the game. Kick the extra point then if it happens that the onside kick is recovered and you get the TD you know you have go for 2 PTs (but you have had about 5 minutes to think of your best play).

Now you are either very stubborn, trolling us and laughing at all of us responding to your crazy thinking, or you do not want to believe what Matt Millen, Eddie Pololak, and most everyone who knows football says to do in this situation.

PC, are you really Kirk Ferentz???

Kicking the PAT gives you the best chance to extend the game. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is extending the game doesn't always give you the best chance to win the game. I think the best chance of winning the game is more important than the best chance of extending it.

I've also said a lot that in this exact situation, it hardly matters at all. I just keep trying to explain the simple math behind it and for some reason, people's overwhelming concern with extending the game won't let them comprehend it.

 

[PCHawk]

I gave an example in the other thread saying coaches always punt on 4th down and 5ish, deep in their own territory, when they are down 2 scores late in the game. At that points, you are pretty much sayong your chance at an onside kick recovery is greater than your chance to convert a 4th down. Someone responded that if you don't get it, the game is over (obviously). Then said if you punt, maybe they will muff the return or fumble a handoff.

His fear of not extending the game leads him to believe a muffed punt, or someone fumbling when they know they can't, is more likely than converting a 4th down and 5. Ironically, Kirk did punt in this situation against Florida in the Bowl we lost and they did muff the punt. We got the best case scenario possible and still needed an onside kick to have a chance to win. That's how bad his decision to punt there was, even tho it worked. Stop concerning yourself with extending the game just for the sake of extending the game.

 

[SamBrownlee48]

Kicking the PAT gives you the best chance to extend the game. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is extending the game doesn't always give you the best chance to win the game. I think the best chance of winning the game is more important than the best chance of extending it.

I've also said a lot that in this exact situation, it hardly matters at all. I just keep trying to explain the simple math behind it and for some reason, people's overwhelming concern with extending the game won't let them comprehend it.

That's the funny part. Those who are saying we shoulf have kicked the PAT are literally arguing that Kirk should have been coaching not to lose rather than coaching to win.

And jere I thought that was a coo2mon complaint about KF.

 

[PCHawk]

I gave an example in the other thread saying coaches always punt on 4th down and 5ish, deep in their own territory, when they are down 2 scores late in the game. At that points, you are pretty much sayong your chance at an onside kick recovery is greater than your chance to convert a 4th down. Someone responded that if you don't get it, the game is over (obviously). Then said if you punt, maybe they will muff the return or fumble a handoff.

His fear of not extending the game leads him to believe a muffed punt, or someone fumbling when they know they can't, is more likely than converting a 4th down and 5. Ironically, Kirk did punt in this situation against Florida in the Bowl we lost and they did muff the punt. We got the best case scenario possible and still needed an onside kick to have a chance to win. That's how bad his decision to punt there was, even tho it worked. Stop concerning yourself with extending the game just for the sake of extending the game.

Kirk was thinking "if I go for it and don't get it, it's over". When he should have been thinking "if I punt this, I have next to no chance at all".

 

[PCHawk]

That's the funny part. Those who are saying we shoulf have kicked the PAT are literally arguing that Kirk should have been coaching not to lose rather than coaching to win.

And jere I thought that was a coo2mon complaint about KF.

It is ironic. His entire game philosophy is to stay in the game for as long as possible so at least you have a chance at the end. He refuses to take any chances early to give himself a better chance to win, just so he can stay in the game. All the while, he's letting bad teams hang around so they have a chance to win.Turns out a lot more people think like him then I thought.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

One other example I remember is in 2002, PSU was playing Iowa, PSU came back from 22 points down to tie the game. PSU went for 2 on the 2nd last TD instead of the last TD. In this case, PSU actually faked the extra point, when they got the 2.

Maybe thats what Iowa should have done against Purdue. Faked going for 1, and then go for 2 on the fake. At least then you have element of surprise.

There is no "at this stage of the game".

We needed 3 things, in any order. A two point, onside kick, extra point FG. All three, you get overtime.

Any order. Circumstances dictate that the onside kick occurs between the extra point and a two point conversion attempt.

Otherwise, any order. Fail at any one, you lose.

No moral victories losing on the last second of the game, versus at the 1 minute mark. Although technically you still have a pray at the 1 minute mark. Just not much of one.

how many minutes are in a college football game?

 

[PCHawk]

OSU in '09 is my favorite example of giving up a huge statistical advantage for the sake of extending the game. Kirk knew he had 100% chance to extend the game and he wasn't about to pass up those odds.

What he was saying without even knowing it was with a minute and a half left, he thought OSU has a better chance to win in regulation without the ball than we had to win in regulation with the ball.

 

[GoHawks12345]

how many minutes are in a college football game?

Here you go.

http://bfy.tw/FBUd