Down 9 and going for 2

PCHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...
This. Also, 100% of the time about 90% of fans won't get it unless we win.
DJI9424 said:
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
Click to expand...

Go reread Gohawks post. It's all there.
 
hwk23 said:
This. Also, 100% of the time about 90% of fans won't get it unless we win.


Go reread Gohawks post. It's all there.
Click to expand...

You know that's the case when your main argument is "If we didn't try a 2 point conversion now, we could have tried one later". Isn't it crazy how that's the basic premise of the other side of the argument?
 
GoHawks12345 said:
Think about this again.

It's where you are going wrong.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will concede you are using conditional probabilities correctly, however, your 58% probability of victory is highly dependent on the 47% two point conversion success rate. If you take this assumption down to 40%, the overall probability is just over 50%. Bottom line, does KF believe his team is this proficient?

Using my own assumptions of 30% for 2 PAT and 99% for 1 PAT, the overall probability is 40.35%, which is significantly below 50%. So the key assumption is how proficient does the person making the decision believe Iowa to be? If it's below 40%, they should play for the potential tie, assuming the 50/50 assumption in OT is accepted.
 
DJI9424 said:
Okay, I will concede you are using conditional probabilities correctly, however, your 58% probability of victory is highly dependent on the 47% two point conversion success rate. If you take this assumption down to 40%, the overall probability is just over 50%. Bottom line, does KF believe his team is this proficient?

Using my own assumptions of 30% for 2 PAT and 99% for 1 PAT, the overall probability is 40.35%, which is significantly below 50%. So the key assumption is how proficient does the person making the decision believe Iowa to be? If it's below 40%, they should play for the potential tie, assuming the 50/50 assumption in OT is accepted.
Click to expand...
I am not finding any good numbers for Iowa's 2pt conversion rate for this year or over the last few years. 4th down conversion is the closest approximate. Iowa has a 4th down conversion percentage of 72.2% this year. That's among the top ten in the nation.

Iowa's offense has been pretty bad most games, but generally getting a couple yards when they need it has not been the issue. I wouldn't put them much below average for 2pt conversion probabilities.
 
PCHawk said:
Playing an 8 point game is like playing a game without knowing the score. Why would you want to do that? Find out the score as soon as possible. Why wait until the end, miss it, and find out you were actually in a 2 possession game?

Calling an 8 point game in football a one possession game is the same as calling a 4 point game in basketball a one possession game. Technically you can catch up in one possession. But odds are against you.
Click to expand...
You aren’t “finding out the score”

Us not converting then does not mean that we wouldn’t have converted later. This argument is beyond stupid.
 
When i brought up the theory of going for 2 down 14, i didn't even have Iowa in mind. I just thought it was interesting. Then I decided it was a good rebuttal to the argument that if most coaches do it, it must be right.
 
DJI9424 said:
Okay, I will concede you are using conditional probabilities correctly, however, your 58% probability of victory is highly dependent on the 47% two point conversion success rate. If you take this assumption down to 40%, the overall probability is just over 50%. Bottom line, does KF believe his team is this proficient?

Using my own assumptions of 30% for 2 PAT and 99% for 1 PAT, the overall probability is 40.35%, which is significantly below 50%. So the key assumption is how proficient does the person making the decision believe Iowa to be? If it's below 40%, they should play for the potential tie, assuming the 50/50 assumption in OT is accepted.
Click to expand...

You're 100% right that it would vary from team to team. Chip Kelly went for 2 early in games because he thought his team had over 50% chance to make it. He utilized a statistical advantage, which few coaches have the stones to do.
 
PCHawk said:
You're 100% right that it would vary from team to team. Chip Kelly went for 2 early in games because he thought his team had over 50% chance to make it. He utilized a statistical advantage, which few coaches have the stones to do.
Click to expand...

I will also mention that the 47% figure is from the NFL and is probably based on their latest rule change of placing the ball at the 2 yard line. Thus the idea that the college average is 47% is likely overstated, and in Iowa's current case, drastically overstated, given their recent offensive production and overall inconsistency.
 
DJI9424 said:
I will also mention that the 47% figure is from the NFL and is probably based on their latest rule change of placing the ball at the 2 yard line. Thus the idea that the college average is 47% is likely overstated, and in Iowa's current case, drastically overstated, given their recent offensive production and overall inconsistency.
Click to expand...

We got on the "down by 14" topic not because of iowa specifically.

People we're trying to suggest coaches make the correct decisions. So to the original point, we can use NFL statistics and compare to the decisions NFL coaches make.

Focusing on iowa in a down 14 situation is fine. Just wasn't why it was brought up in the "down by 15" debate.
 
GoHawks12345 said:
We got on the "down by 14" topic not because of iowa specifically.

People we're trying to suggest coaches make the correct decisions. So to the original point, we can use NFL statistics and compare to the decisions NFL coaches make.

Focusing on iowa in a down 14 situation is fine. Just wasn't why it was brought up in the "down by 15" debate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Coaches can't make the right decisions if they aren't traditional, without getting scrutinized.
 
DJI9424 said:
I will also mention that the 47% figure is from the NFL and is probably based on their latest rule change of placing the ball at the 2 yard line. Thus the idea that the college average is 47% is likely overstated, and in Iowa's current case, drastically overstated, given their recent offensive production and overall inconsistency.
Click to expand...

No way Sean Payton goes for 2 down 14 and I've heard on here he always makes the right decision.
 
theboat said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, the reward might be a win for Iowa in regulation. Two scores of 8 points equals 16 points added to Iowa's initial score of 9 for a 25-24 win for Iowa in regulation.

What's the point of winning in regulation? Only the nose knows.
 
GoHawks12345 said:
People we're trying to suggest coaches make the correct decisions. So to the original point, we can use NFL statistics and compare to the decisions NFL coaches make.
Click to expand...

And to this point... I think we've shown coaches can definitely go with "conventional wisdom".

Making them a poor source to help answer any question of if there is a better way of doing things.

And in this case, evaluating going for 2 when down 15.
 
GoHawks12345 said:
And to this point... I think we've shown coaches can definitely go with "conventional wisdom".

Making them a poor source to help answer any question of if there is a better way of doing things.

And in this case, evaluating going for 2 when down 15.
Click to expand...

I was talking to a guy I know and he pretty much said since the Saints kicked the PAT first and won, it was obviously the right decision. I got a little kick out of him thinking a one game sample size proved his point beyond a doubt. Then he went on to say since Iowa lost, it proved going for 2 first was wrong. That was funny as hell since they were about a 1% chance to win no matter what they did. Some people just have no ability to use critical thinking.
 
PCHawk said:
I was talking to a guy I know and he pretty much said since the Saints kicked the PAT first and won, it was obviously the right decision. I got a little kick out of him thinking a one game sample size proved his point beyond a doubt. Then he went on to say since Iowa lost, it proved going for 2 first was wrong. That was funny as hell since they were about a 1% chance to win no matter what they did. Some people just have no ability to use critical thinking.
Click to expand...

I feel like half the people on here will read what you said, even with your commentary, and still agree with the logic of the other guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top