Was Ferentz asked about timing of 2 point Conversion?

DJI9424 said:
My understanding of KF's decision-making is that he plays the long established percentages, that's why I cannot understand why he went for 2 on the first score. There's really nothing to think about, you need at least two touchdown scores to tie or win the game, so once you score the first TD, you have to kick the extra point in order to keep the 1 possession TD (with 2 point conversion) in play.

The percentage of successfully kicking the extra point are roughly 98%, the percentage of the 2 point conversion cannot be much better than 50%, in fact, it may even be below 50%. So, if you're the historical percentage guy, you kick the point after the first TD and live to play for the onside kick recovery and a one possession game.

But when I factor in KF's historical game management decisions, I can explain why he did it, i.e. it was just another poor game management decision. I hope he wrote a note to himself in his little notebook, that will help him remember what to do in the event this same scenario occurs in the future. (sigh)
Click to expand...

The percentages aren't with kicking the PAT. You increase your odds of winning by going for 2 there.
 
Even if Iowa had all 3 of their TOs left at the time I don't think there was a realistic amount of time left to try doing what KF did. But they didn't so that's irrelevant. The only other logic to that line of thinking is this stay with me. That's if Iowa converts that 2 pt conversion and then gets the onside kick and then scores a TD to be down one right? Well by strategically doing what he did his strategy would have been to go for 2 and the win right then and not kick it and go to OT right? And we all know that's not what KF would have done.... To me that's what makes that decision so out of character. So maybe he was just trying to catch Purdue off guard with that decision too?? One thing is for sure and that's we all have put way more thought into it then he did...
 
Hawkfnntn said:
Even if Iowa had all 3 of their TOs left at the time I don't think there was a realistic amount of time left to try doing what KF did. But they didn't so that's irrelevant. The only other logic to that line of thinking is this stay with me. That's if Iowa converts that 2 pt conversion and then gets the onside kick and then scores a TD to be down one right? Well by strategically doing what he did his strategy would have been to go for 2 and the win right then and not kick it and go to OT right? And we all know that's not what KF would have done.... To me that's what makes that decision so out of character. So maybe he was just trying to catch Purdue off guard with that decision too?? One thing is for sure and that's we all have put way more thought into it then he did...
Click to expand...

The problem people have is thinking that being down 8 is a one possession game. It is a 1.5 possession game according to percentages. And momentum in sports has been shown to not be a real thing. Miller and Deace are both wrong on this. Not surprisingly.
 
DJI9424 said:
My understanding of KF's decision-making is that he plays the long established percentages, that's why I cannot understand why he went for 2 on the first score. There's really nothing to think about, you need at least two touchdown scores to tie or win the game, so once you score the first TD, you have to kick the extra point in order to keep the 1 possession TD (with 2 point conversion) in play.

The percentage of successfully kicking the extra point are roughly 98%, the percentage of the 2 point conversion cannot be much better than 50%, in fact, it may even be below 50%. So, if you're the historical percentage guy, you kick the point after the first TD and live to play for the onside kick recovery and a one possession game.

But when I factor in KF's historical game management decisions, I can explain why he did it, i.e. it was just another poor game management decision. I hope he wrote a note to himself in his little notebook, that will help him remember what to do in the event this same scenario occurs in the future. (sigh)
Click to expand...

The odds of a 2 point conversion is 47% I think. That means if we go for 2 after the first td, the odds of making it a one possession game is 47%. The odds that it ends up being a 2 possession game is 53%. If we kick the PAT, the odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 1 possession game is 47%. The odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 2 possession game is 53%.

I want to know if I'm in a 1 possession game or 2 with 1 minute left. That way, I can plan my offense to try to score with 20 seconds left or so. It gives me a small chance at a miracle onside kick, 20 yards of offense in under 20 seconds, and a long field goal until the end. If I wait until the end to find out, I'm probably taking the whole clock to score. Therefore I have no chance once I miss.
 
David79 said:
The problem people have is thinking that being down 8 is a one possession game. It is a 1.5 possession game according to percentages. And momentum in sports has been shown to not be a real thing. Miller and Deace are both wrong on this. Not surprisingly.
Click to expand...

No joke. I've said that over and over and people keep responding with "we need a one possession game". If you say a coin flip will be heads every single time, you're an idiot. If you say it will land on black every single time you're an idiot. But if you say an 8 point game is a 1 possession game, when it's only true 47% of the time, you're a genius. When else can you say something and only be right 47% of the time and actually think it's right?
 
PCHawk said:
The odds of a 2 point conversion is 47% I think. That means if we go for 2 after the first td, the odds of making it a one possession game is 47%. The odds that it ends up being a 2 possession game is 53%. If we kick the PAT, the odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 1 possession game is 47%. The odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 2 possession game is 53%.

I want to know if I'm in a 1 possession game or 2 with 1 minute left. That way, I can plan my offense to try to score with 20 seconds left or so. It gives me a small chance at a miracle onside kick, 20 yards of offense in under 20 seconds, and a long field goal until the end. If I wait until the end to find out, I'm probably taking the whole clock to score. Therefore I have no chance once I miss.
Click to expand...
Have you seen this team? It takes weeks to score twice. No way they could do that in one minute once the missed the conversion.
You kick the extra point and hope for a miracle. If you go for 2, you at best still need a miracle and at worst need 2.
 
I think people rely to much on feeling without looking at the actual data. Either way, being down 15 midway through the 4th, your chances of winning the game are really low.
 
David79 said:
The percentages aren't with kicking the PAT. You increase your odds of winning by going for 2 there.
Click to expand...

No you don't, you only increase your odds of winning AFTER you successfully execute the two point conversion. Before you execute it, you are actually playing the lower percentage strategy by going for two on the first TD.
 
David79 said:
I think people rely to much on feeling without looking at the actual data. Either way, being down 15 midway through the 4th, your chances of winning the game are really low.
Click to expand...
Actually no. I am dead inside to Iowa football so I know feeling has nothing to do with it. Logic says you kick. Arguing otherwise is silly.
 
David79 said:
The problem people have is thinking that being down 8 is a one possession game. It is a 1.5 possession game according to percentages. And momentum in sports has been shown to not be a real thing. Miller and Deace are both wrong on this. Not surprisingly.
Click to expand...

Im just waiting for one "oh duh that's true. I can't believe it took that long to register ". Even if it's followed by a "I would still kick the PAT tho". And you know what, with 1 minute left, I might even go against the slight odds and kick it. Kinda like hitting with 16 against a 7. I know the odds are slightly against me, but sometimes I still do it.
 
theboat said:
Have you seen this team? It takes weeks to score twice. No way they could do that in one minute once the missed the conversion.
You kick the extra point and hope for a miracle. If you go for 2, you at best still need a miracle and at worst need 2.
Click to expand...

You do realize that if you kick the PAT, at best you still need a miracle and at worst you need 2, right?
 
PCHawk said:
Im just waiting for one "oh duh that's true. I can't believe it took that long to register ". Even if it's followed by a "I would still kick the PAT tho". And you know what, with 1 minute left, I might even go against the slight odds and kick it. Kinda like hitting with 16 against a 7. I know the odds are slightly against me, but sometimes I still do it.
Click to expand...

so your point is to learn sooner that you're going to lose instead of playing the percentages to try and take advantage of the remaining time? is that your stance?
 
PCHawk said:
The odds of a 2 point conversion is 47% I think. That means if we go for 2 after the first td, the odds of making it a one possession game is 47%. The odds that it ends up being a 2 possession game is 53%. If we kick the PAT, the odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 1 possession game is 47%. The odds that our 8 point deficit is actually a 2 possession game is 53%.

I want to know if I'm in a 1 possession game or 2 with 1 minute left. That way, I can plan my offense to try to score with 20 seconds left or so. It gives me a small chance at a miracle onside kick, 20 yards of offense in under 20 seconds, and a long field goal until the end. If I wait until the end to find out, I'm probably taking the whole clock to score. Therefore I have no chance once I miss.
Click to expand...

What you have failed to factor into your percentage calculations is the probability your team will have two possessions in the last minute of the game versus a one possession game. That probability necessitates (if you are playing the percentages) keeping it a one possession game after the first score.
 
theboat said:
Ask yourself this. If Iowa was down by 11 instead of 15, should they have kicked the FG on 4th down?
Click to expand...
Not on 4th and goal from the 1. Going for it increases your chances of winning, which is good. But also increases your chances of knowing your going to lose sooner, which fans hate, obviously. I go for the better chance of winning. Coaches do the traditional play and kick it so they don't get fired by uneducated bosses. Even tho it lowers there chance to win.

Kirk did it against ISU in ot once. Down 3 4th and 1 and he played to tie the game. He thought making a pressure field goal and winning in the 2nd ot was better odds than converting a 4th and 1 then scoring to win the game. He was wrong and a bhgp article spelled it out later. He went with the traditional play and screwed his team without drawing attention to himself instead of going for the play that gave him the best chance, even if it meant taking heat for an untraditional decision.
 
PCHawk said:
Not on 4th and goal from the 1. Going for it increases your chances of winning, which is good. But also increases your chances of knowing your going to lose sooner, which fans hate, obviously. I go for the better chance of winning. Coaches do the traditional play and kick it so they don't get fired by uneducated bosses. Even tho it lowers there chance to win.

Kirk did it against ISU in ot once. Down 3 4th and 1 and he played to tie the game. He thought making a pressure field goal and winning in the 2nd ot was better odds than converting a 4th and 1 then scoring to win the game. He was wrong and a bhgp article spelled it out later. He went with the traditional play and screwed his team without drawing attention to himself instead of going for the play that gave him the best chance, even if it meant taking heat for an untraditional decision.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the "better chance of winning" in the situation we were in was to kick the extra point and try to recover the onside kick, scoring a second touchdown and then a 2 point conversion, right?

Which is easier? 1) kicking an extra point, or, 2) converting on a 2 point conversion.
 
PCHawk said:
Your second paragraph is good and I've admitted that that part plays a factor. Your first paragraph is why I'm debating this whole thing. You are already concluding there is a zero percent chance at the first try because you have hindsight of knowing the outcome. Your last scenario says "going for two first and not making it has you lose that slim chamce". The part you aren't accounting for is going for 2 the second time and not making it also takes away that slim chance. It just takes it away a little later.
Click to expand...

The whole point or argument isn't about scoring the points needed, everybody knows somehow you need 15, the point is the best chance to get to 15. If you go for 2 after the first TD and don't make it there is 0% chance. When kicking the extra pt, there is at least a chance left with some time left on the clock. So, you don't even get the 2nd chance in your scenario.
 
PCHawk said:
The 2 point conversion is such a huge part of the equation. You can't start the equation after the attempt and compare it to the odds before the attempt. By doing that, it would be by far the right choice if you make the first one. But that's not true either. It's extremely close either way. Way too close to call stupid.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point. It is not about the points, it is about which strategy gives the team some time left to even try.
 
ArvadaHawk said:
so your point is to learn sooner that you're going to lose instead of playing the percentages to try and take advantage of the remaining time? is that your stance?
Click to expand...

My point is learn sooner so you still have a chance to change your fate instead of learn your fate with no time left. I'm not interested in extending a game. I'm interested in giving my team the best chance to win.

Here's a situation. Down 13 with 4 minutes left. 4th and 8 from your own 25. I see coaches punt there every time. Do you know why? They are too afraid to know their fate right then and there that they take any chance away for their team to win. This isn't to compare these two situations. It's just to point out that coaches do traditional decisions that are really bad.

The game is evolving tho and in 10 years or so it will be common knowledge to go for 2 first. All coaches under 50 will do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top