No doubt. I think it was Dean who said the Saints did it and it worked so it must be right. Maybe not tho. This has been a long thread.
Down 9 and going for 2
- Thread starter enosmohawk
- Start date
No doubt. I think it was Dean who said the Saints did it and it worked so it must be right. Maybe not tho. This has been a long thread.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
The only "sample size" Dean and boat know about is at the grocery store.
83Hawk
Banned
The point is to get it to a one possession game. You have a better chance of doing that by kicking (mathematical fact), thus giving you a better chance to win.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
It would be so nice If you could tell me if your trolling right now.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Make it stop.
Please.
Holy Shite.
Please.
Holy Shite.
83Hawk
Banned
Tell me you can understand a simple concept.
Do you agree you have a better chance to win in a one possession game than two possessions?
Do you agree there is a higher probability of kicking the xp than making a 2 point conversion?
Kicking gives you a higher probability of getting to a one possession game, which gives you a better chance to win than a two possession game. Simple. At least it is for most of the posters on this board, and the vast majority of coaches and experts. But I guess you must be smarter than all of them.
The point is not to get it to a one possession game. The point is to tie the game. I think we vam all agree it was mathmatically impossible to tie the game with one more possession without making a 2 point conversion.
83Hawk
Banned
Oh brother. You have to be trolling.
Of course the point is to tie the game. Of course you need a 2 point conversion. But for the last freaking time.....the BEST chance of getting to a one possession game is to kick. That is an indisputable mathematical FACT. Unless you can prove that the odds of converting a 2 is greater than kicking the xp. Which you can’t, because the odds of making the kick are greater than converting the 2.
Man, you are dense. Either that or you are just purposely being a dbag. I’m guessing the latter.
I’ve done all I can continually proving you wrong. You lose. You can continue to make a fool of yourself. My work is done.
SamBrownlee48
Well-Known Member
Lol.
So you want Kirk to coach not to lose? Noted.
Waiting to try the 2pt conversion does not make it any more likely to happen. Nor does it increase the likelihood that you will convert the onside kick. Moreover, in either case, converting the 2pt conversion makes it so all you need is another touchdown and extra point.
The variable is what happens of you dont convert the 2. There, it is better to know you need two scores with a minute left than any amount of time less than a minute left.
Your entire premise is flawed. Not all "one score games" are equal. It is better to be down by 7 points than 8. You say it is more likely to be able to make it an 8 point game than a 7 point game. Sure. And the equation works the same the other way. If x is the chance of making a pat, and y is the chance of making a 2 pt conversion then:
X+Y=Y+X.
Your argument that X+Y>Y+X is ridiculous.
Since trying it at the end of the game doesnt increase the success rate, the only difference is knowing when you are going to need two scores. As hopeless as a 2 score game with one minute is, a 1 score game with time expired (as in, Iowa recovers the onside and scores as time expires then fails the 2) is infinitely more hopeless. .001% chance is better than 0%.
Last edited:
MikeyLikesIowa
Well-Known Member
This call was...
Enough said.
Enough said.
The best chance to get a one possession game is by far to kick the PAT. How does that help your odds of winning the game again?
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
This is exactly why you kick the XP. While mathematically there is no advantage to either, the fact is psychologically there is a huge advantage to kicking the XP. When Iowa missed that 2 point play, both teams understood the game was over with 1 minute left. If Iowa kicks the XP both teams know the game is gonna go down to 0 seconds left on the clock. This is true even if Iowa recovers the onside kick, the still all know the game is effectively over.
I don't even know how you can argue this? You are basically taking the game down to one play with a minute left, rather than giving your team that extra minute to at least believe they have a chance of winning if they get the onsides kick.
I think we all understand that this was a long, long, long shot at a win no matter what. I just don't get as a matter of principal why you wouldn't want to make sure that game goes to the final second rather than just saying with a minute left, well F it, we are going for it here just because?
proudhawkfan21
Well-Known Member
It didnt really matter when you went for the 2. You needed a 2 at some point
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
I think everyone on this thread is trolling including myself.
83Hawk
Banned
So you agree. Finally.
How does it increase your chance to win the game?
You already agree the best chance to get to a one possession game is to kick. And since I’m sure you also agree it is easier to score on one possession than two, then it follows that: if you have a better chance at one possession by kicking, and better chance of scoring on one possession than two, then kicking gives you the better chance at winning (or in this case, tying).
Simple. Glad you finally came around.
83Hawk
Banned
You completely misunderstood what I was talking about. Not surprised. Read it again.
I'm curious to know what the people who agree with me thought when Kirk kicked the field goal down 8. I've never understood why people were so up in arms over that. Now I realize that it's because they put way, way, way too much value on an 8 point game.
I don't really blame them either, because when you're in one, you "feel" like you still have a good shot. I know I do. I was shitting my pants a few years ago when we were up 8 on Michigan and they were driving. I've never ever realized until this discussion that after you score a touchdown in an 8 point game, your odds of winning are less than 25%.
I don't really blame them either, because when you're in one, you "feel" like you still have a good shot. I know I do. I was shitting my pants a few years ago when we were up 8 on Michigan and they were driving. I've never ever realized until this discussion that after you score a touchdown in an 8 point game, your odds of winning are less than 25%.
JoeyLabasForPresident
Well-Known Member
I mean sure, your odds are always 50/50 when you’re flipping a coin, but we aren’t talking about random chance here. Football is a game of situations, and putting you players in a position where it’s not even worth fighting when there’s still time left was an awful decision.
DJI9424
Well-Known Member
The compound probability of scoring 1 PAT followed by a 2 PAT is the same as the probability of scoring a 2 PAT followed by a 1 PAT, as long as the assumptions for converting the 1 PAT and 2 PAT remain the same for both the first and second touchdowns. Thus the expectation of getting a total of three extra points after both TDs are scored does not matter which order they are obtained, i.e. Prob(1 followed by 2) = Prob (2 followed by 1).
However, when looked at individually, it's easier to complete the 1 PAT than the 2 PAT. So if you have decided you will play for a tie in regulation, after scoring the first TD (6 points), being 9 points down, the less risky play initially is to kick the 1 PAT, knowing that you will need to score 8 more points, which is possible if you obtain one more possession. Although one more possession is remote and the probability of scoring another touchdown is even more remote, you are technically still alive with the very limited time remaining in regulation.
In a sense, you can look at this as what is the probability the next play (onside kick) actually matters? In both cases, whether 2 followed by 1 or 1 followed by 2, it MUST be recovered but if you went for 2 initially and failed, converting this onside kick is not sufficient by itself to keep you alive, you must gain another possession. So, in my way of thinking, you take the more sure thing and kick the PAT, keeping the one possession game in play.
The key determinant in this scenario is the time remaining in regulation. Given more time, you might initially decide to go for 2, but in this game the chance of more than one possession was nil.
However, when looked at individually, it's easier to complete the 1 PAT than the 2 PAT. So if you have decided you will play for a tie in regulation, after scoring the first TD (6 points), being 9 points down, the less risky play initially is to kick the 1 PAT, knowing that you will need to score 8 more points, which is possible if you obtain one more possession. Although one more possession is remote and the probability of scoring another touchdown is even more remote, you are technically still alive with the very limited time remaining in regulation.
In a sense, you can look at this as what is the probability the next play (onside kick) actually matters? In both cases, whether 2 followed by 1 or 1 followed by 2, it MUST be recovered but if you went for 2 initially and failed, converting this onside kick is not sufficient by itself to keep you alive, you must gain another possession. So, in my way of thinking, you take the more sure thing and kick the PAT, keeping the one possession game in play.
The key determinant in this scenario is the time remaining in regulation. Given more time, you might initially decide to go for 2, but in this game the chance of more than one possession was nil.
