Was Ferentz asked about timing of 2 point Conversion?

[PCHawk]

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.

So you are more concerned with time left to try and I'm more concerned with giving my team the best chance to win.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

The percentages aren't with kicking the PAT. You increase your odds of winning by going for 2 there.

Tell that to the 95% of other college coaches who would have kicked the Pt after first.

 

[PCHawk]

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.

Going for 2 after the 2nd td also gives you 0% chance to win. I'm saying my way is slightly above 0%

 

[PCHawk]

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.

You have to eventually do both so it doesn't matter which one is easier.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

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.

Seriously overthinking it with breaking it down by 1/2 possession. Everybody pretty much knows what one means when stating it is a one possession game. Simply saying a TD and a conversion, regardless if is 7 or 8 points. Still a chance to tie. Stating a one possession game doesn't have any tie-ins or relationship to the % of success of the play. It is merely the chance to tie or win.

 

[theboat]

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.

You realize you are defending the guy that last year kicked the FG when down 8 late in the game because he thought we had to score twice regardless right?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

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.

the reasoning for coaches to punt in that situation are many. if you don't convert, you're giving your opponent an easy fg attempt to stretch the lead to 16; which would require 2 td's and 2 2-point conversion to tie. And that would be after your opponent runs the clock down below 4 minutes or you spend all of your timeouts, or both. If you punt, they could muff the punt, or fumble the return, or fumble the ball during one of their 3 ensuing running plays. There are all kinds of reasons why.

But if you're whole point is "knowing when" then why is it better to know sooner rather than later when later would give you more opportunity to change your fate?

 

[ArvadaHawk]

You have to eventually do both so it doesn't matter which one is easier.

wrong. easier doesn't = possible and harder doesn't = impossible. harder does mean it's less likely, so why wouldn't you wait until your very last gasp to try the harder?

 

[hwk23]

Fail at the two pt conversion and we're done. It doesn't matter if it comes after the 1st or 2nd TD. Same odds either way. Fans like waiting because they feel like we have a chance longer.

In some cases it may be slightly better to go for two 1st in order to know you are down two scores earlier but didn't really matter here.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

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.

Everybody admits the chances were slim, the debate is the best strategy to give the best chance to tie the game up.

One can't say after knowing it didn't work, "Well, the chances were really low anyway......". A coach still has to give the team the best chance to win.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

So you are more concerned with time left to try and I'm more concerned with giving my team the best chance to win.

You are trolling us.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Going for 2 after the 2nd td also gives you 0% chance to win. I'm saying my way is slightly above 0%

I'm going for the tie and take chances in overtime. I think Iowa's best chance would have been in overtime Saturday.

 

[theboat]

You have to eventually do both so it doesn't matter which one is easier.

That isn't true. It absolutely matters which one is easier. because you have a sequence of events that has to take place. You are right that all of the things need to happen regardless, but how they happen matters.

Scenario 1:
100% XP (Recinos is 100% in his career)
18% Onside kick (based on statistics I found online)
25% Iowa has to score a TD again (Lets be real, wasn't happening so this is all just for fun)
41% 2 pt.

Scenario 2
41% 2 point
18% onside kick
25% TD
100% XP.

When looked at as a whole, sure they all equal out, but in order to get to the next thing in the sequence, you have to get through the first one. Give me the 18% of having the ball and a shot to tie with 1 minute left over the 7% chance of having the shot to tie any day. Especially when there is a 59% chance the game is over after the first step in the sequence.
You can go for two in that scenario if you have enough gametime to alter your play to try to get 2 more possessions. Iowa didn't have time for that so they were relying on one onside kick. That has the lowest probability of success of everything so why put yourself in a position where you would need 2 in order to be in the game.

You can argue this till you are blue in the face. Ferentz didn't have any idea what he was doing. Don't give me the BS that he was trying for the best chance to win. He was looking at his generic card that said when down 9 go for 2. He wasn't factoring in the timing at all.

 

[HomerChampless]

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)

KF does play the odds and going for 2 down a one point PAT and one score (8 points) isn't the acceptable thing to do coaching wise and statistically speaking.

Maybe someone on the Iowa coaching staff was attempting to win the game in regulation 25-24 with two 2 point PATs? This is not a tendency of KF. Maybe KF just had a brain fart?

 

[MelroseHawkins]

That isn't true. It absolutely matters which one is easier. because you have a sequence of events that has to take place. You are right that all of the things need to happen regardless, but how they happen matters.

Scenario 1:
100% XP (Recinos is 100% in his career)
18% Onside kick (based on statistics I found online)
25% Iowa has to score a TD again (Lets be real, wasn't happening so this is all just for fun)
41% 2 pt.

Scenario 2
41% 2 point
18% onside kick
25% TD
100% XP.

When looked at as a whole, sure they all equal out, but in order to get to the next thing in the sequence, you have to get through the first one. Give me the 18% of having the ball and a shot to tie with 1 minute left over the 7% chance of having the shot to tie any day. Especially when there is a 59% chance the game is over after the first step in the sequence.
You can go for two in that scenario if you have enough gametime to alter your play to try to get 2 more possessions. Iowa didn't have time for that so they were relying on one onside kick. That has the lowest probability of success of everything so why put yourself in a position where you would need 2 in order to be in the game.

You can argue this till you are blue in the face. Ferentz didn't have any idea what he was doing. Don't give me the BS that he was trying for the best chance to win. He was looking at his generic card that said when down 9 go for 2. He wasn't factoring in the timing at all.

Well done Boat!

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Well done Boat!

It's all about taking the path of least resistance to give the best chance. As you point out, you have a higher % to at least get to step 2.

 

[DJI9424]

KF does play the odds and going for 2 down one PAT and one score (8 points) isn't the acceptable thing to do coaching wise and statistically speaking.

Maybe someone on the Iowa coaching staff was attempting to win the game in regulation 25-24 with two 2 point PATs? This is not a tendency of KF. Maybe KF just had a brain fart?

I really doubt it, especially when they have literally no offensive play they can count on to get them the needed yardage.

I really think whoever made the decision failed to understand the ramifications of failing to get the 2 point conversion after the score; i.e. turning it into a two possession game instead of a one possession game (TD with 2 point conversion).

My assumption is if they had completed the 2 point conversion, recovered an onside kick, scored a second touchdown to get within 1 point, KF would have kicked the extra point to send the game into overtime because they were at home and having scored 15 points in the last few minutes of regulation, would have expected to continue their momentum.

But that is all just hypothetical musings, any hope for victory was dashed when the first 2 point conversion failed.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

Fail at the two pt conversion and we're done. It doesn't matter if it comes after the 1st or 2nd TD. Same odds either way. Fans like waiting because they feel like we have a chance longer.

In some cases it may be slightly better to go for two 1st in order to know you are down two scores earlier but didn't really matter here.

how many minutes are in a college football game?

 

[HomerChampless]

I really doubt it, especially when they have literally no offensive play they can count on to get them the needed yardage.

I really think whoever made the decision failed to understand the ramifications of failing to get the 2 point conversion after the score; i.e. turning it into a two possession game instead of a one possession game (TD with 2 point conversion).

My assumption is if they had completed the 2 point conversion, recovered an onside kick, scored a second touchdown to get within 1 point, KF would have kicked the extra point to send the game into overtime because they were at home and having scored 15 points in the last few minutes of regulation, would have expected to continue their momentum.

But that is all just hypothetical musings, any hope for victory was dashed when the first 2 point conversion failed.

Do you think the coach who 'failed to understand the ramifications of failing to get the 2 point conversion after the <first> score' was KF or, maybe, someone else?

 

[DJI9424]

Do you think the coach who 'failed to understand the ramifications of failing to get the 2 point conversion after the <first> score' was KF or, maybe, someone else?

I don't know, but one thing I am sure of, KF needs to explain the decision that was made. If he is not willing to do that much, what is his team supposed to think of him and his staff? I know he does not want his team second guessing him in public but how can you play well for a coach and staff you do not understand, or worse, do not respect?

The silence coming from KF on this strategic decision cannot build any kind of confidence in the staff or the team. But that is what we have come to expect from KF and many of us have grown more than weary of it.