Was Ferentz asked about timing of 2 point Conversion?

ArvadaHawk said:
no, kelley, it is under the umbrella of what going for 2 when we did, represents, can you now understand the other issues surrounding the program. Understand?
Click to expand...

I understand perfectly, pick something meaningful other than the decision to go for 2 points!

UNDERSTAND????
 
theboat said:
It is pretty sad that ferments is so bad at these decisions that a common sense decision is discarded because he did wayyyyy dumber stuff.
Click to expand...

There is logic to going for 2 points, there was ZERO logic to taking the football going into to wind after winning the coin toss.
 
ssckelley said:
There is logic to going for 2 points, there was ZERO logic to taking the football going into to wind after winning the coin toss.
Click to expand...
There isn’t really. One way you have a 100% chance of having another play in contention and roughly a 1/5 chance of getting the ball with a chance to tie. The other you have a 40% chance of having another play in contention and a 1/14 chance of getting the ball back with a chance to tie. Not logical at all.
 
theboat said:
There isn’t really. One way you have a 100% chance of having another play in contention and roughly a 1/5 chance of getting the ball with a chance to tie. The other you have a 40% chance of having another play in contention and a 1/14 chance of getting the ball back with a chance to tie. Not logical at all.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap...I've tried to explain it to you and you're ignoring it.

Proceed with beating up Ferentz over going for 2 points...lmao.
 
ssckelley said:
Bullcrap...I've tried to explain it to you and you're ignoring it.

Proceed with beating up Ferentz over going for 2 points...lmao.
Click to expand...
Ignoring what? Iowa wasn’t going to score again regardless but when you only have time for 1 possession you make it a one possession game to have a chance. But math is hard for ferentz. Last year he though 8 points was a 2 possession game against Wisconsin so maybe he still thinks that.
 
ssckelley said:
There is logic to going for 2 points, there was ZERO logic to taking the football going into to wind after winning the coin toss.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We had the wind in the 4th qtr. so, if we didn't need it (meaning, we were ahead, which, we were at halftime) PU wouldn't have it either. But if we did need it in the 4th qtr, which we did, we had it. the issue is that this dumbphvch staff didn't utilize it. See: going for 2 when down by 9 with 1:04 left in the game. Understand?
 
theboat said:
Ignoring what? Iowa wasn’t going to score again regardless but when you only have time for 1 possession you make it a one possession game to have a chance. But math is hard for ferentz. Last year he though 8 points was a 2 possession game against Wisconsin so maybe he still thinks that.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's why he and Barta like each other so much. Barta's understanding of Math says 7 wins = 2.25 million bonus
 
Last edited:
ArvadaHawk said:
I disagree. We had the wind in the 4th qtr. so, if we didn't need it (meaning, we were ahead, which, we were at halftime) PU wouldn't have it either. But if we did need it in the 4th qtr, which we did, we had it. the issue is that this dumbphvch staff didn't utilize it. See: going for 2 when down by 9 with 1:04 left in the game. Understand?
Click to expand...

No, I don't understand....explain it some more.
 
theboat said:
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.
Click to expand...

All this is at least well thought out. The only thing I'llsay is having a better chance to get to the next level doesn't equal having a better chance to win. I agree with your last sentence for sure. Kirk in my opinion got it right, but only by accident. No way he thought it through enough to get it right on purpose. I've spelled it out 100 times on here and you all can't even get it.
 
PCHawk said:
All this is at least well thought out. The only thing I'llsay is having a better chance to get to the next level doesn't equal having a better chance to win. I agree with your last sentence for sure. Kirk in my opinion got it right, but only by accident. No way he thought it through enough to get it right on purpose. I've spelled it out 100 times on here and you all can't even get it.
Click to expand...
Do you go all in on the first hand too? :)

Nothing he did increased the chance of winning.
Maybe the overall chance was the same, but he drastically decreased the chance of having a chance to take that chance.
 
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...
Sure it is and when you factor in a team like Iowa that isn't a quick strike team it's probably even lower. There's only so many possessions in a game is what it boils down to. Iowa's margin for error is so low because they have fewer touches and seem to not do much with the ones they get.
 
theboat said:
Do you go all in on the first hand too? :)

Nothing he did increased the chance of winning.
Maybe the overall chance was the same, but he drastically decreased the chance of having a chance to take that chance.
Click to expand...

At least you're debating with well thought out posts. Most of the posts on here are not well thought out at all.

And I would go all in on the first hand if I had the advantage. It's better to take good odds and lose early than take bad odds and lose late.
 
PCHawk said:
At least you're debating with well thought out posts. Most of the posts on here are not well thought out at all.

And I would go all in on the first hand if I had the advantage. It's better to take good odds and lose early than take bad odds and lose late.
Click to expand...
Problem is that Iowa’s offense is 7-2 off suit
 
Chuck Long said Iowa got out-coached.

Long and Sage Rosenfels both say you go for one to extend the game.

KF’s strategy is to shorten a game.
When you’re down by 9 with a minute left you want to stretch the game — not make a 60 minute game into a 59 minute game.

That’s a moot point anyway. How can you be down by two touchdowns with a minute to play in Kinnick against Purdue?

Purdue...
 
These are conditional probabilities. Order matters.

Conditional probability of of scenario 1: 0.990 (The .99% chance of the extra point dominates the conditional probability).

Conditional probability of 2 point scenario: 0.410

You kick the extra point. Even with just math.

theboat said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top