Down 9 and going for 2

[PCHawk]

Dude you are being incredibly obtuse. To say that a team can score faster if they are down 9 instead of 8 is just silly. As Sean Payton proved this very weekend, if you are down 8, you play like you are down 2 scores. The Saints scored with 43 seconds left, because he and everyone but you I guess understands you might have to kick another onside kick if you don't get the 2 point conversion.

Plus your whole argument doesn't hold water for Iowa's situation anyway. Iowa was kicking an onsides kick with 1 minute left basically. They didn't have time for the second score if they had to have it anyway. If Iowa scored with 20 seconds or 0 seconds, knowing they need 2 scores was not a mathematical advantage to them.

Why put yourself in position of not knowing if it's one or two scores when that position can be avoided?

 

[hawkfan2679]

Yes. With 1 minute left, the benefit of knowing may not make up for the momentum lost and human aspect. That's why I'm not arguing it was by far the right call, like I would be if there were 4 minutes left. All I'm doing is explaining the logic behind it because I found it interesting.

I'm going to say it was closer to the dead wrong call than it was "by far the right call" but I feel like at least we've bridged a bit of the disconnect between the two points of view. I belabored my points in the other 100+ reply thread on Saturday night; not a ton of interest into rehashing those and what has already been said in this one again.

Can we all just agree that it may take a month for Iowa to score twice?

Chad.

 

[GoHawks12345]

I'm going to say it was closer to the dead wrong call than it was "by far the right call" but I feel like at least we've bridged a bit of the disconnect between the two points of view. I belabored my points in the other 100+ reply thread on Saturday night; not a ton of interest into rehashing those and what has already been said in this one again.

You see, I followed that thread. Respectful discussion. Was a very early poster to that thread even. Basically the first person who disagreed.

But PCHawk was doing a better job of explaining then I could have. With a lot more patience. So I just read.

But this was boat and dean just jerking PCHawk around.

 

[guffus]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

You say you want math to back up your decision? Where better to go than the folks at 538.com. essentially this is what they said

• 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).

So after alll that analysis, they are saying the odds about the same, whether you go for 2 or go for 1, when you are down 9 late in the game.

 

[PCHawk]

The only difference in when you miss the conversion is you lose with 1 minute instead of 2. Thats it.When there is no benefit what so ever to waiting until the end (other than the debatable momentum argument) then any benefit to trying first is better.

 

[guffus]

Best way to describe being down by 8.

Its a 1 possesion, 2 score game.

 

[theboat]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

You say you want math to back up your decision? Where better to go than the folks at 538.com. essentially this is what they said

• 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).

So after alll that analysis, they are saying the odds about the same, whether you go for 2 or go for 1, when you are down 9 late in the game.

The problem is you don’t have time to make tactical adjustments with 1 minute left. You are just done. I agreed that with 4 minutes I am ok with going for 2, but one minute you ONLY get a chance at one possession so it is important to have that chance being within 1 possession

 

[hawkfan2679]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

You say you want math to back up your decision? Where better to go than the folks at 538.com. essentially this is what they said

• 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).

So after alll that analysis, they are saying the odds about the same, whether you go for 2 or go for 1, when you are down 9 late in the game.

That's the article PC was quoting...I think he even dropped a "knowledge is power" from that article on Saturday. But then again, that article doesn't speak to Saturday's situation because there was so much less time left in the Iowa game than the broader spectrum of the analysis on that page. While the 2 point conversion percentages/odds don't suggest a big difference, where the big difference comes into play is if you miss (as PC has said) the 2 point conversion the game is basically over at that point. That's why I felt it relevant to "normalize" the discussion a few posts up.

I saw Chip Kelly referenced earlier in this thread. As was mentioned, he used to take some of those gambles on 2 point conversions early (like, 1st quarter early) in the game, but often times he'd do it out of unique formations. Remember our lonesome polecat from the OSU game? Chip would run that and if the defense didn't adjust with enough bodies to account for the 6 OL and 1 RB-type way out to the left, he'd quick snap it to a QB/holder/kicker and swing it out to that back (standing behind the wall of OL) and basically tell that guy not to trip on his way into the end zone for the 2 point conversion.

 

[hwk23]

The only difference in when you miss the conversion is you lose with 1 minute instead of 2. Thats it.When there is no benefit what so ever to waiting until the end (other than the debatable momentum argument) then any benefit to trying first is better.

If the momentum argument is comparing making an extra point vs not making a two, it's incorrect. If you miss the two point try, you lose the game under either scenario (other than the extremely small chance of scoring twice in 1 minute). So the comparison should be between making a two vs making an extra point on the 1st TD which shouldn't have much momentum difference.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Do you maybe recall PCHawk addressing this what feels like a billion times at this point?

When your down 8, he is calling that being a 1.5 possession game.

Even if you disagree, you should at least be aware of what the other person is saying.

That's a F'ing stupid point/statement.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

People call a 7 point deficit and a 8 point deficit a "1 possession game".

PCHawk has repeatedly said these two are very different. To tie the game on one possession with an 8 point deficit is a lot less successful then a 7 point deficit. Obviously?

But that is like rocket science apparently. To understand where he goes from would be like a cure for cancer.

Ass kisser. "I love you PCHawk!"

 

[MelroseHawkins]

So a loss is better if it was on the last play?

Yep. Congrats. You got it. The game was lengthened and gave the best chance to tie.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I have tried to figure out why the Iowa coaching staff chose to go for the two point conversion, when a kicked extra point would have got us to within one possession and still a possibility to tie. I thought you always PRESERVE your possibility to tie or win to keep pressure on the opponent. I don't ever recall a college or pro team in the same position as the Hawkeyes and choosing to go for two.

Can someone give me a plausible explanation for going for two????

Extra red zone practice..."just in case"?

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I would rather give myself the best chance to win. Reguardless of when that chance came. You have the mindset of staying alive as long as possible. Even if it decreases your odds of winning. Most coaches agree with you.

You've completely lost the argument, and to be honest, look quite desperate now.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I'm not proving that they can score twice. I'm saying you have a better chamce to score twice if you know you need to score twice.

If you're down 8 with 4 minutes left, you can run the ball, throw 5 yard passes, take some time between plays. All because you think you are down 1 possession. But over half of the time, you are going to find out you were really down 2 possessions because you ended up missing the 2 point conversion. If only you knew in advance you were down 2 possessions, you could have abandoned the running game and went no huddle. But you didn't because you didn't know the score.

Why do you continually quadruple the time on the clock in your scenarios when has nothing to compare with Iowa 1 minute left on the clock last Saturday? You can't compare the two.

 

[deanvogs]

That's the article PC was quoting...I think he even dropped a "knowledge is power" from that article on Saturday. But then again, that article doesn't speak to Saturday's situation because there was so much less time left in the Iowa game than the broader spectrum of the analysis on that page. While the 2 point conversion percentages/odds don't suggest a big difference, where the big difference comes into play is if you miss (as PC has said) the 2 point conversion the game is basically over at that point. That's why I felt it relevant to "normalize" the discussion a few posts up.

I saw Chip Kelly referenced earlier in this thread. As was mentioned, he used to take some of those gambles on 2 point conversions early (like, 1st quarter early) in the game, but often times he'd do it out of unique formations. Remember our lonesome polecat from the OSU game? Chip would run that and if the defense didn't adjust with enough bodies to account for the 6 OL and 1 RB-type way out to the left, he'd quick snap it to a QB/holder/kicker and swing it out to that back (standing behind the wall of OL) and basically tell that guy not to trip on his way into the end zone for the 2 point conversion.

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.

 

[PCHawk]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/amp/

You say you want math to back up your decision? Where better to go than the folks at 538.com. essentially this is what they said

• 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).

So after alll that analysis, they are saying the odds about the same, whether you go for 2 or go for 1, when you are down 9 late in the game.

That wasn't the article. I'll try to link it.

 

[PCHawk]

Why do you continually quadruple the time on the clock in your scenarios when has nothing to compare with Iowa 1 minute left on the clock last Saturday? You can't compare the two.

Because it's far easy to understand the logic with more time left. I was trying to help him understand. Once you understand how it helps, you can decide for yourself whether you would rather have time to adjust your 1 minute drill to a 40 second drill, to give yourself an extremely small statistical advantage, or just extend the game even tho it gives you absolutely no advantage.

 

[theboat]

Because it's far easy to understand the logic with more time left. I was trying to help him understand. Once you understand how it helps, you can decide for yourself whether you would rather have time to adjust your 1 minute drill to a 40 second drill, to give yourself an extremely small statistical advantage, or just extend the game even tho it gives you absolutely no advantage.

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

No $#it captain obvious.

 

[PCHawk]

Yep. Congrats. You got it. The game was lengthened and gave the best chance to tie.

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.