Going for 2

[Mavric]

 

 

Going for two when they went up 32-28 late in the game is a fireable offense in my opinion. You need the ONE point so a turn around FG after a Nebraska TD wins you the game. You only need ONE point. Two points gives your ZERO ADVANTAGE over one point, and the conversion rate is something like 65% less.

 

Instead, he they didnt convert, and a turn around FG after a Nebraska TD would have only tied the game.

 

I would fire a coach for that decision. Basic 3rd grade math and mechanics of football scoring system that pee wee football players understand.

 

Yeah, there is almost no one in the coaching profession that would agree with you.

 

You go for two to get ahead by six so the other team has to score a TD and also make their own extra point to beat you. The difference between a four and a five point lead at that point really doesn't mean much. The other team has to score a TD (a FG doesn't do them any good) and that would be enough to get ahead either way.

 

You give yourself two outs - either stop them to win or stop the PAT to tie. You don't assume you'll still have time to score again yourself.

 

 

 

there is not a coach in the game that game plans around the other team missing the extra point. you assume a touchdown is 7 points. the difference between a 4 and 5 point lead is huge late in the game. the difference between a 5 and 6 point lead is meaningless that late in the game.

 

 

so you have the same potential outcome in either situation..... stop them (win either way) or they score a TD and two outcomes 1) 98% you are down by 2 and 2% you are down by 3 (kick extra point outcome) or 2) 30% you are down by 1 and 70% you are down by 3 (go for 2 outcome)

 

Every coach in the world would choose option 1...except Helfrich.

 

EDIT:

 

its just basic math...

 

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

 

 

Oregon scored with 10:25 to play, putting them up four. According to that chart, the would need to have between a 49%-50% probability of converting to go for two. They were three for six coming into the game so they were right on the line. And if they felt they had a better probability, then the play would have been to go for two.

 

I'm not sure that really counts as "basic math" when it in includes a number that can be open to interpretation. Based on whose interpretation of what variables? All conversion attempts? Just by their regular offense? Throw out your conversions against non-Power 5 opponents?

 

Most regular charts say to go for two when up by 4.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mavric

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

Going for two when they went up 32-28 late in the game is a fireable offense in my opinion. You need the ONE point so a turn around FG after a Nebraska TD wins you the game. You only need ONE point. Two points gives your ZERO ADVANTAGE over one point, and the conversion rate is something like 65% less.

 

Instead, he they didnt convert, and a turn around FG after a Nebraska TD would have only tied the game.

 

I would fire a coach for that decision. Basic 3rd grade math and mechanics of football scoring system that pee wee football players understand.

 

Yeah, there is almost no one in the coaching profession that would agree with you.

 

You go for two to get ahead by six so the other team has to score a TD and also make their own extra point to beat you. The difference between a four and a five point lead at that point really doesn't mean much. The other team has to score a TD (a FG doesn't do them any good) and that would be enough to get ahead either way.

 

You give yourself two outs - either stop them to win or stop the PAT to tie. You don't assume you'll still have time to score again yourself.

 

 

 

there is not a coach in the game that game plans around the other team missing the extra point. you assume a touchdown is 7 points. the difference between a 4 and 5 point lead is huge late in the game. the difference between a 5 and 6 point lead is meaningless that late in the game.

 

 

so you have the same potential outcome in either situation..... stop them (win either way) or they score a TD and two outcomes 1) 98% you are down by 2 and 2% you are down by 3 (kick extra point outcome) or 2) 30% you are down by 1 and 70% you are down by 3 (go for 2 outcome)

 

Every coach in the world would choose option 1...except Helfrich.

 

EDIT:

 

its just basic math...

 

http://www.footballcommentary.com/twoptchart.htm

 

 

Oregon scored with 10:25 to play, putting them up four. According to that chart, the would need to have between a 49%-50% probability of converting to go for two. They were three for six coming into the game so they were right on the line. And if they felt they had a better probability, then the play would have been to go for two.

 

I'm not sure that really counts as "basic math" when it in includes a number that can be open to interpretation. Based on whose interpretation of what variables? All conversion attempts? Just by their regular offense? Throw out your conversions against non-Power 5 opponents?

 

Most regular charts say to go for two when up by 4.

 

 

Use Helfirch's Oregon team's historical rate for 2xp conversion and its not even close. Easy decision go for 1. Who uses a two game sample size against joke teams for accurate averages?

 

Those images are for Dick Vermeil's famous chart, which was very groundbreaking for its time. However, it has been proven to be mathematically inaccurate. Does not take into account % likelihood of success on 2xp, time remaining in game, etc.

 

 

Yes, I realize that. But like I said, it depends on what variables you use to calculate the probability. Perhaps it's more appropriate to use this years stats because of different players or different plays. Or consider the fact that we were having a hard time stopping them - they had nearly 450 yards of total offense and were averaging almost 7 yards per play.

 

It's just not nearly as cut-and-dried and you'd like to make it look. All depends on how you look at the probability.

[Mavric]

Also, even if you miss the conversion, give up a TD and then have to get a FG, it's not that you've lost the game. It goes into overtime and you still basically have a 50/50 chance to win.

 

Not the same situation but I had a similar discussion with a random Husker fan as we watched the end of the Iowa/NDSU game at the stadium. When NDSU scored to make it 21-20, I advocated going for two, which was probably against what your chart showed. The other guy said they should kick and go to overtime. My reasoning was if you go for two, you give yourself two chances to win - make the conversion or stop Iowa and get back to kick a FG. But the extenuation circumstances were what Iowa would do. I said - before NDSU even attempted the conversion - that if they missed, Iowa would play conservative and NDSU would probably get the ball back in good field position. That's exactly what happened and even with an average kicker NDSU had plenty of time to get back into FG range and win the game.

 

Not that one instance proves or disproves anything. But generally speaking, I think the more aggressive play is the way to go, especially on the road. Play to win, don't play not to lose. So there's even more that goes into the calculation than simply the probably of making the conversion. It's what's going to happen because you do or don't.

[huKSer]

Oregon usually goes for two on the initial TD, then goes for 1 the rest of the time.

 

Isn't Nebraska 1 for 1 on 2 pt conversions this year?

[Mavric]

 

Also, even if you miss the conversion, give up a TD and then have to get a FG, it's not that you've lost the game. It goes into overtime and you still basically have a 50/50 chance to win.

 

Not the same situation but I had a similar discussion with a random Husker fan as we watched the end of the Iowa/NDSU game at the stadium. When NDSU scored to make it 21-20, I advocated going for two, which was probably against what your chart showed. The other guy said they should kick and go to overtime. My reasoning was if you go for two, you give yourself two chances to win - make the conversion or stop Iowa and get back to kick a FG. But the extenuation circumstances were what Iowa would do. I said - before NDSU even attempted the conversion - that if they missed, Iowa would play conservative and NDSU would probably get the ball back in good field position. That's exactly what happened and even with an average kicker NDSU had plenty of time to get back into FG range and win the game.

 

Not that one instance proves or disproves anything. But generally speaking, I think the more aggressive play is the way to go, especially on the road. Play to win, don't play not to lose. So there's even more that goes into the calculation than simply the probably of making the conversion. It's what's going to happen because you do or don't.

First it was "no one in the coaching profession would agree with you" Now it's "it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be". Ok.

 

We do agree that more aggressive play is generally the way to go. I just think that there is literally no advantage to get that second point up 32-28 with 9 min to go. 98% chance of 5 point lead or 40% (at best, 20% if we use Oregon's last game) of a 6 point lead. 5 points makes a huge difference over 4 points. 6 points makes no difference over 5 points. It the numbers back me up.

 

 

Yes, when we are talking about two different things there are two different answers.

 

The numbers you want to use back up your position. That doesn't make them the only numbers that can be used, let alone the correct ones.

[Huskers19911]

 

 

Also, even if you miss the conversion, give up a TD and then have to get a FG, it's not that you've lost the game. It goes into overtime and you still basically have a 50/50 chance to win.

 

Not the same situation but I had a similar discussion with a random Husker fan as we watched the end of the Iowa/NDSU game at the stadium. When NDSU scored to make it 21-20, I advocated going for two, which was probably against what your chart showed. The other guy said they should kick and go to overtime. My reasoning was if you go for two, you give yourself two chances to win - make the conversion or stop Iowa and get back to kick a FG. But the extenuation circumstances were what Iowa would do. I said - before NDSU even attempted the conversion - that if they missed, Iowa would play conservative and NDSU would probably get the ball back in good field position. That's exactly what happened and even with an average kicker NDSU had plenty of time to get back into FG range and win the game.

 

Not that one instance proves or disproves anything. But generally speaking, I think the more aggressive play is the way to go, especially on the road. Play to win, don't play not to lose. So there's even more that goes into the calculation than simply the probably of making the conversion. It's what's going to happen because you do or don't.

 

First it was "no one in the coaching profession would agree with you" Now it's "it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be". Ok.

We do agree that more aggressive play is generally the way to go. I just think that there is literally no advantage to get that second point up 32-28 with 9 min to go. 98% chance of 5 point lead or 40% (at best, 20% if we use Oregon's last game) of a 6 point lead. 5 points makes a huge difference over 4 points. 6 points makes no difference over 5 points. It the numbers back me up.

Yes, when we are talking about two different things there are two different answers.

 

The numbers you want to use back up your position. That doesn't make them the only numbers that can be used, let alone the correct ones.

I agree with Mav. 6 points vs. 5 is a huge difference in the game. Five points, a TD wins the game. 6 points, and you still have a chance.

 

Also, if you go for two points and get it, there's a momentum swing for your team. They get confidence.

 

Should Oregon have gone for two points all game long? No, but their coaches were successful after the first attempt, and I think they wanted it to gain momentum for their team.

[BoNeyard]

Oregon usually goes for two on the initial TD, then goes for 1 the rest of the time.

 

Isn't Nebraska 1 for 1 on 2 pt conversions this year?

Exactly. Oregon will usually go for 2 on the first TD, get it and then it sets the tone for the rest of the game. Thankfully Helfrich appeared to be desperate in being more crazy then Chip Kelly and went for 2 way too many times. Had Oregon stuck to their typical routine, I think it changes the mindset of the entire game. Instead of 20-14 at half, it is 22-14 at half and Oregon has that mental edge over Nebraska.

 

I don't know what Helfrich was thinking. Oregon got far too arrogant in their play calling and it cost them. Good for them, good for Nebraska.

[GSG]

 

 

 

 

[GBRFAN]

 

 

 

Also, even if you miss the conversion, give up a TD and then have to get a FG, it's not that you've lost the game. It goes into overtime and you still basically have a 50/50 chance to win.

 

Not the same situation but I had a similar discussion with a random Husker fan as we watched the end of the Iowa/NDSU game at the stadium. When NDSU scored to make it 21-20, I advocated going for two, which was probably against what your chart showed. The other guy said they should kick and go to overtime. My reasoning was if you go for two, you give yourself two chances to win - make the conversion or stop Iowa and get back to kick a FG. But the extenuation circumstances were what Iowa would do. I said - before NDSU even attempted the conversion - that if they missed, Iowa would play conservative and NDSU would probably get the ball back in good field position. That's exactly what happened and even with an average kicker NDSU had plenty of time to get back into FG range and win the game.

 

Not that one instance proves or disproves anything. But generally speaking, I think the more aggressive play is the way to go, especially on the road. Play to win, don't play not to lose. So there's even more that goes into the calculation than simply the probably of making the conversion. It's what's going to happen because you do or don't.

First it was "no one in the coaching profession would agree with you" Now it's "it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be". Ok.

We do agree that more aggressive play is generally the way to go. I just think that there is literally no advantage to get that second point up 32-28 with 9 min to go. 98% chance of 5 point lead or 40% (at best, 20% if we use Oregon's last game) of a 6 point lead. 5 points makes a huge difference over 4 points. 6 points makes no difference over 5 points. It the numbers back me up.

Yes, when we are talking about two different things there are two different answers.

 

The numbers you want to use back up your position. That doesn't make them the only numbers that can be used, let alone the correct ones.

I agree with Mav. 6 points vs. 5 is a huge difference in the game. Five points, a TD wins the game. 6 points, and you still have a chance.

 

Also, if you go for two points and get it, there's a momentum swing for your team. They get confidence.

 

Should Oregon have gone for two points all game long? No, but their coaches were successful after the first attempt, and I think they wanted it to gain momentum for their team.

 

 

This is true. However, they already have the momentum from the TD. So going for 2 only gives them a small bump in momentum. Missing the 2 actually takes away most of the momentum from the TD

[Blackshirt96]

Finally we were on the good end of bad decision making. 45 years of watching football, Positive I haven't witnessed that before. he kicks, they get the Dub.

If they kick we tie & go to overtime. Both teams scored 5 TD's. If you wanna say after the first one they win, its still wrong. NU would have gone for 2 at the end. Who knows if they make it or not.

[Mavric]

Hmmmmmmmm........

 

Clemson just scored to go up by four ..... then went for two.

[Count 'Bility]

Hmmmmmmmm........

 

Clemson just scored to go up by four ..... then went for two.

and......

 

 

Thats pretty standard. Unless im missin somethin.

[zoogs]

I don't remember how Oregon did it, but that seems like a no brainer. 4 or 5 is the same result with one drive to go; 6 requires them to make the PAT, too.

[Sparker]

 

Hmmmmmmmm........

 

Clemson just scored to go up by four ..... then went for two.

and......

 

 

Thats pretty standard. Unless im missin somethin.

 

 

Yep. four and five are both less than six.

[Timmahawk]

Hmmmmmmmm........

 

Clemson just scored to go up by four ..... then went for two.

Near the end of the game you always go for 2 when up by 4. No difference between 4 and 5 points, but 6 at least gives you a chance to block the extra point to stay tied.