Going for 2

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Here's Sam's citation:

 

That's where I pulled it from. Check for yourself.

[RedDenver]

According to cfbstats.com, Oregon was 4 of 11 in converting 2 pt tries the last two seasons combined. Already 4 of 11 this season. Not a winning strategy.

[Mavric]

 

Here's Sam's citation:

 

That's where I pulled it from. Check for yourself.

 

 

Apparently I'm not finding those stats on there. Perhaps you could point me to the right spot.

 

Either way, they're under 50% the last several years which means they aren't good at math.

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

 

 

Here's Sam's citation:

 

That's where I pulled it from. Check for yourself.

 

 

Apparently I'm not finding those stats on there. Perhaps you could point me to the right spot.

 

Either way, they're under 50% the last several years which means they aren't good at math.

 

Here's Oregon's page: http://www.cfbstats.com/2016/team/529/index.html

[Mavric]

 

 

 

Here's Sam's citation:

 

That's where I pulled it from. Check for yourself.

 

 

Apparently I'm not finding those stats on there. Perhaps you could point me to the right spot.

 

Either way, they're under 50% the last several years which means they aren't good at math.

 

Here's Oregon's page: http://www.cfbstats.com/2016/team/529/index.html

 

 

Cool. Thanks. I was looking for them on the team rankings page.

 

Your're right. But, like I said, that's still 9 for 23 since 2013 coming into the game Saturday. Which means they would have been ahead to kick instead of go for two.

[Count 'Bility]

Helfrich said they kept doing it cuz they liked the looks they were getting but werent executing. Now. I get the first one when you get it. This is what Oregon does. They a throw a wrench into the game with unconventional things. The flare. The unis. The tempo. The nutso 2 pt conv plays. But usually when they get that first one and get to 8, theyve already thrown the game into a spin, and would proceed to kick. 14 goes to 15. 17 goes to 18. 24 goes to 25 etc. It's a mind trick. Makes opposing coaches think about the game.

[84HuskerLaw]

It can be good strategy albeit unorthodox. I tend to think that coaches of the top teams should be making a deliberate attempt to avoid the overtime situations with lesser teams. That is because the longer two 'unequal' teams play, the more likely the better team is to have the advantage and to ultimately win. Just common sense to me. Getting the score out of the ordinary by using extraordinary scoring methods, etc is just one way to try to put the lesser opponent in a more difficult situation.

 

Now, again, if after a large number of attempts, (say 100 or something) over a period of time, it becomes apparent that the 2 point conversion success rate is significantly below 50%, then it certainly becomes unwise to use it on a regular, near constant basis. However, it does make sense to go for 2 if on your first attempt you identify defensive weaknesses or other indications are that your chances of success are increased. Also, like with almost everything else in football strategy, the more you practice things, the better you should become. Also, the fact that you go for two quite often forces your future opponents to spend valuable and limited practice time working on ways to defend it. This is another advantage.

 

I think football could have a few new wrinkles added to make the game more interesting, especially if they continue to try to reduce the risk of injury in the game which necessarily reduces the exciting of big plays ,etc. For example, perhaps adding a third option for the extra point try by giving a team the option to back up to the 25 to spot the ball and giving the kicker the chance to kick for a 3 point 'extra' point try.

[RedDenver]

After watching Helfrich's comments to the press on Sunday, he's taking the blame for the 2-pt plays, but reading between the lines makes me think that his players missed keys that would have led them to kick instead of going for 2. I'm speculating here, but sounds like they were trying to coach up the guys on the sideline and it wasn't translating onto the field.

[Mavric]

It's a subscription article but both guys said it was pretty stupid for Oregon to go for two as much as they do.

 

[Mavric]

That's a hot take by ESPN right there.

 

Everybody in the world knows 2 point conversion rate is less than 50%. That means you are an idiot and will likely give the other teams extra points if you go for two all 5 times you score a TD.

Kind of depends on the situation. I would guess that the vast majority of attempts are with a team's regular offense when they are "supposed to" or "have to" go for two late in the game. Oregon's last two attempts fall into that category.

 

I'd be curious what the numbers are for the "other" attempts. Basically anything in the first three quarters. I would think you'd have a better chance to get it with your normal offense than with gimmicks like Oregon uses early. But almost no one does it - or at least far less frequently than Oregon.

[Joe_5700]

 

 

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 he kicks them all they get a tie. Or, like the announcers, are we only going to criticize the plays that didn't work, and not the same ones that did?

 

they win if the kick the rest, they scored 5 td's , got 1 2 pointer, left 4 points if they kick the rest. they win 36-35 if my math is correct

 

This is great logic if you know what the outcome of the game is going to be. The only reason people are second guessing Oregon's going for 2 throughout the game was Nebraska's ability to stop those conversions. Oregon is notorious for often going for 2 point conversions.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

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 he kicks them all they get a tie. Or, like the announcers, are we only going to criticize the plays that didn't work, and not the same ones that did?

 

they win if the kick the rest, they scored 5 td's , got 1 2 pointer, left 4 points if they kick the rest. they win 36-35 if my math is correct

 

This is great logic if you know what the outcome of the game is going to be. The only reason people are second guessing Oregon's going for 2 throughout the game was Nebraska's ability to stop those conversions. Oregon is notorious for often going for 2 point conversions.

 

Eh, not really. They actually don't go for it as much as I thought they did. They had gone for two 23 times in three years plus two games before Saturday. That's barely more than once every other game. So five times in one game is a drastic increase even by their standards.

 

And if they would have learned anything from their own history, they would know that they are successful well less than 50% of the time. Thus, they are better off to kick it.

 

They would have been better off to kick it all five times. They would definitely have been better off to kick it the last four. It would even have made a lot of sense to kick the last three - they weren't "chasing" any points and had already been stopped once.

 

We definitely know after the fact that they should have been kicking it. But it's not like it was some crazy ending score like 25-23 where a bunch of odd things added up to needing a couple extra points. They could simply have done the things that were more likely to score points. But they didn't.

[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.

[Landlord]

They went for two five times. The only ones that were stupid to go for were the 2nd and 3rd ones, and they weren't even the coach's call, they were left up to the kicker or whoever on the field.

[shyndy]

 

 

 

 

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

how much time was left at that point? It's two FG also