Going for 2 down by 9

[DDThompson]

You have to Kick it because it puts added pressure on the recieving team. That was just ridiculous and I honestly don’t know if any other HC in the country at any level would played it the way KF did..

This is why you do it. It keeps the “pressure” on the opponent.

Others have said it and are straight on — We should in no fathomable way be down by two touchdowns to Purdue at the end of a game.

From one of the worst teams in the B1G last season, the last multiple seasons, to a team that mauls Iowa the very next season.

In Kinnick.

That is indefensible.

The 2 pt debate is slight-of-hand. Benefits KF by giving an outlet for frustration at a dumb (yet basically meaningless) game decision.

it’s Fake news to the real news Iowa got mauled by a team that’s not good.

 

[deanvogs]

I'm not going to read this thread. There is only one way to play this, period. Anything else is a *ucking mistake by the coaches.

You kick the extra point to pull within one score. I can't believe a coaching staff doesn't understand this. If you are down 10, you don't go for it on 4th down if you are in FG range. If you are down 9, you don' t go for two, you kick the XP and are then down 8. Simple math any fool but our coaches can do I guess.

 

[83Hawk]

99% of college and pro coaches would have kicked the extra point. There is a reason for that. And yet, there are still people who support Kirk’s decision to go for 2.

He made a bad decision, pure and simple.

 

[PCHawk]

Not really. What i am suggesting is that, based on yesterdays situation, you are taking an unnecessary risk by going for it by 2 with a minute left. You are arguing that knowing earlier how many points you need it will change the way you play on subsequent drives. But by missing on that try the odds you force yourself to overcome become even greater because of the time remaining. You said yourself that the onside recovery, TD, 2nd onside recovery, GW FG is an almost impossible scenario. So do you take your chances with nearly impossible or do you kick it first and let the 2 point decide the game? You might still win the game but in yesterdays situation, math determines kicking it first.

They have a chance to make the 2 point conversion until they don't make it. I said it was nearly impossible, but the other way is just as impossible because you still have to make the 2 pt conversion at the end.

 

[PCHawk]

If they kick the extra point and make it, they're down by 8. you still have a meaningful chance to recover an onside kick, score a touchdown and convert an 2 point conversion to tie. So, kicking the extra point first guarantees you at least a second meaningful chance to score a touchdown and 2 pnt conversion to tie. going for two points on the first touchdown and failing guarantees you a meaningless chance for a second touchdown and convert a 2 point conversion to tie. you'd still be down by 1 point. The idea is that kicking an extra point is far easier and has a much higher probability for success than a 2pnt conversion.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only arguing the math of this. The only reason I'm making a deal of it at all is because I figured I would help people understand a simple concept so they would understand why the decision at least makes sense. Turns out it must not be so simple after all if so many people just can't grasp it.

With math, you can't say, if I miss something now, I don't have a chance to make it later. You have to assume the conversion is either made in both instances or missed in both instances. Then decide which path is better. Where you are screwing up the math part of it is saying you already know this one way missed so a 50/50 chance is better than no chance. That is such wrong thinking that it's understandable why you think the decision was horrible.

 

[83Hawk]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only arguing the math of this. The only reason I'm making a deal of it at all is because I figured I would help people understand a simple concept so they would understand why the decision at least makes sense. Turns out it must not be so simple after all if so many people just can't grasp it.

With math, you can't say, if I miss something now, I don't have a chance to make it later. You have to assume the conversion is either made in both instances or missed in both instances. Then decide which path is better. Where you are screwing up the math part of it is saying you already know this one way missed so a 50/50 chance is better than no chance. That is such wrong thinking that it's understandable why you think the decision was horrible.

You are missing the point. No one is arguing the math. The reason you kick is because you want to extend the game as long as possible. When you go for 2 and don’t make it, the game is over right then and there. That is why 99% of college and pro coaches would have kicked. It was a bad decision by Kirk.

 

[PCHawk]

I'm not going to read this thread. There is only one way to play this, period. Anything else is a *ucking mistake by the coaches.

You kick the extra point to pull within one score. I can't believe a coaching staff doesn't understand this. If you are down 10, you don't go for it on 4th down if you are in FG range. If you are down 9, you don' t go for two, you kick the XP and are then down 8. Simple math any fool but our coaches can do I guess.

If you are down 10 and have 4th and goal from 2 inches away, you should absolutely go for it. It would help your odds of winning by a ton but it could also seal your fate earlier. As a coach, I would say I want to give my team the best chance to win. But there is a traditional way to do things and there is a smart way to do things and it's easier (and quite frankly a cop out) for coaches to just go with traditional.

I for one am glad Kirk put a lot of time into figuring out the math in game situations. He's doing things now that I've been wanting for years and it's pissing fans off because they don't understand. If all coaches would follow his lead, all this stupid traditional shit would be laughed at in a few years. Everyone on here would be saying "remember when we all thought we had to kick the PAT against Purdue that one year? Boy were we in the dark".

 

[PCHawk]

You are missing the point. No one is arguing the math. The reason you kick is because you want to extend the game as long as possible. When you go for 2 and don’t make it, the game is over right then and there. That is why 99% of college and pro coaches would have kicked. It was a bad decision by Kirk.

There are absolutely people arguing the math. They are the only ones that are wrong so they are the ones I'm talking to. You're way of thinking isn't wrong. Other than thinking it was an absolute horrible call that is. It was only a slightly good call or a slightly bad call at best.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm only arguing the math of this. The only reason I'm making a deal of it at all is because I figured I would help people understand a simple concept so they would understand why the decision at least makes sense. Turns out it must not be so simple after all if so many people just can't grasp it.

With math, you can't say, if I miss something now, I don't have a chance to make it later. You have to assume the conversion is either made in both instances or missed in both instances. Then decide which path is better. Where you are screwing up the math part of it is saying you already know this one way missed so a 50/50 chance is better than no chance. That is such wrong thinking that it's understandable why you think the decision was horrible.

pc, football isn't just math. football is a game of logic of strategy of time constraints. so, it does matter when and how. and so, using logic, the decision involves the sequence you use. and please, the condescension in your post isn't necessary.

But i will ask you this. On a % of success basis, which has a far greater success %, kicking an extra point or converting a 2 point conversion? Then i would ask, if you needed both an extra point and a 2 point conversion, in approximately 1 minute of game time; which sequence of kicking an extra point and converting a 2 point conversion would give you the greatest % of success that would allow you to have a chance for a meaningful attempt at the other choice? Apparently, this simple logic isn't so simple, either.

 

[83Hawk]

If you are down 10 and have 4th and goal from 2 inches away, you should absolutely go for it. It would help your odds of winning by a ton but it could also seal your fate earlier. As a coach, I would say I want to give my team the best chance to win. But there is a traditional way to do things and there is a smart way to do things and it's easier (and quite frankly a cop out) for coaches to just go with traditional.

I for one am glad Kirk put a lot of time into figuring out the math in game situations. He's doing things now that I've been wanting for years and it's pissing fans off because they don't understand. If all coaches would follow his lead, all this stupid traditional shit would be laughed at in a few years. Everyone on here would be saying "remember when we all thought we had to kick the PAT against Purdue that one year? Buy were we in the dark".

So......all these coaches, with years of experience and more football knowledge in their little finger than you have total...are doing it wrong. There is a reason why they would kick....and tradition isn’t it. If it is better to go for 2, then you can be darn sure they would be doing it.

 

[HawkGold]

I'm not going to read this thread. There is only one way to play this, period. Anything else is a *ucking mistake by the coaches.

You kick the extra point to pull within one score. I can't believe a coaching staff doesn't understand this. If you are down 10, you don't go for it on 4th down if you are in FG range. If you are down 9, you don' t go for two, you kick the XP and are then down 8. Simple math any fool but our coaches can do I guess.

Thank you football god who does the only legit criticism of the team at the right time.

 

[PCHawk]

pc, football isn't just math. football is a game of logic of strategy of time constraints. so, it does matter when and how. and so, using logic, the decision involves the sequence you use. and please, the condescension in your post isn't necessary.

But i will ask you this. On a % of success basis, which has a far greater success %, kicking an extra point or converting a 2 point conversion? Then i would ask, if you needed both an extra point and a 2 point conversion, in approximately 1 minute of game time; which sequence of kicking an extra point and converting a 2 point conversion would give you the greatest % of success that would allow you to have a chance for a meaningful attempt at the other choice? Apparently, this simple logic isn't so simple, either.

Sorry about the condencensiin5. It's built up over the evening of thinking I could make something obvious and not once getting an "ok now I get it". Even if it's followed by a "I still wouldn't do it." Which I totally get that part.

On the question you asked. It doesn't matter what gives your next possession the best chance to be relevant. What matters is what gives your team the best chance to win. Mathematically, it's the way Kirk did it. Emotionally, maybe the other way. When math says one way and emotion says the other, and both ways are less than 1%, can either decision be horrible?

Also if there were 5 minutes left, Kirk's decision would have been thd right call by a landslide, yet 99% of coaches still wouldn't do it. That really helps bring into perspective the whole "if 99% of coaches are doing it, it must be right" argument.

 

[PCHawk]

So......all these coaches, with years of experience and more football knowledge in their little finger than you have total...are doing it wrong. There is a reason why they would kick....and tradition isn’t it. If it is better to go for 2, then you can be darn sure they would be doing it.

Read the last part of my last post. 99% of coaches can be and are wrong about things.

 

[PCHawk]

Has anyone read the story on the coach who goes for an onside kick after every score. It sounds dumb as F at first but it's really not a bad idea. He says the chance of an extra possession is better than the risk of losing 25-30 yards of field position. In truth, he's probably right, especially with our bend but don't break defense, but no coaches would ever do it.

 

[Hawk1987]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t there have been a few seconds left if we actually held them on the last third down where they would have had to punt or potentially snap it on forth and run around?

I deleted the game off DVR but I thought there was 53 seconds or so before they broke the long run. Quick stop and the 40 second run off would have potentially a few seconds left where they have to do something with it being a one possession game!

KICK THE DAMN EXTRA POINT FIRST!

 

[PCHawk]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t there have been a few seconds left if we actually held them on the last third down where they would have had to punt or potentially snap it on forth and run around?

I deleted the game off DVR but I thought there was 53 seconds or so before they broke the long run. Quick stop and the 40 second run off would have potentially a few seconds left where they have to do something with it being a one possession game!

KICK THE DAMN EXTRA POINT FIRST!

When you miss the extra point, it's not a one possession game. When you kick the extra point doesn't change that. It only changes whether you know it or not yet. That's the biggest problem. People assume 8 points is a one possession game, but 53% of the time, it's a 2 possession game. You need to know as soon as possible whether you need one or two more possessions. Kirk gave his team the benefit of knowing earlier it was a 2 possession game. If he kicks the extra point and gets the onside kick, he would treat the game like a one possession game. Then if he misses the 2 point conversion later, he has no chance for a miracle.

 

[deanvogs]

If you are down 10 and have 4th and goal from 2 inches away, you should absolutely go for it. It would help your odds of winning by a ton but it could also seal your fate earlier. As a coach, I would say I want to give my team the best chance to win. But there is a traditional way to do things and there is a smart way to do things and it's easier (and quite frankly a cop out) for coaches to just go with traditional.

I for one am glad Kirk put a lot of time into figuring out the math in game situations. He's doing things now that I've been wanting for years and it's pissing fans off because they don't understand. If all coaches would follow his lead, all this stupid traditional shit would be laughed at in a few years. Everyone on here would be saying "remember when we all thought we had to kick the PAT against Purdue that one year? Boy were we in the dark".

Nice straw-man. Going for 2 after a TD is always going to be from the 2 yard line. It isn't like going for 2 is somehow closer after the first TD than after the second TD.

You ALWAYS get the game to within 1 score, and then kick the onsides kick.

 

[deanvogs]

Thank you football god who does the only legit criticism of the team at the right time.

Does it ever get old following me around licking my ball sack?

As far as criticizing the team, what difference does it make if I come onto Hawkeye nation and criticize the team? We have plenty of that viewpoint around here, you need me to add mine as well? Unless you are part of the Dirty 30, you haven't been around long enough to have seen me rip he staff up and down and call for Ferentz head long ago.

 

[NCHawker]

I'll always remember this game as the game they went for Poo

 

[PCHawk]

Nice straw-man. Going for 2 after a TD is always going to be from the 2 yard line. It isn't like going for 2 is somehow closer after the first TD than after the second TD.

You ALWAYS get the game to within 1 score, and then kick the onsides kick.

That post was in response to you saying you kick a field goal down 10. You shouldn't always do that.