When Should You Go For Two?

[Nebfanatic]

For the few here who have picked up what's going on, you may enjoy the last few paragraphs from the article (that most posters here haven't read).

The most common and significant mistakes by far are failing to go for 2 when down 4, 8 or 11 late in the game: Of 81 such clear-cut decisions, coaches got it right a combined zero times. They also kicked the extra point down 2 in the third quarter five times, when they clearly shouldnt have, and once in the fourth(!) for good measure.

There is no excuse for professional coaches to make such simple mistakes. If youre a coach, you should be doing this analysis yourself or doing it better. If youre still kicking extra points 14 times more often than going for 2, youre not doing your job. If youre in the sports media and you havent mastered this material, and wont hold coaches accountable for not doing their jobs, then youre not doing your job either.

Is the author correct? Yes.

Does the author know why those people are constantly making the mistakes? Don't know he didn't say anything about it. I know why...but I'm not telling lol.

Thanks for not telling, it helps build suspense.
Nobody's contending, much, going for 2s LATE, you don't have to be Albert Analytics Einstein to figure that out, and especially if the Big Boss Man Upstairs signs off on it. But if you botch 'em earlier in the show, you're even more f'd than if you had just gone ahead and kicked the PAT.

Except the article said coaches didn't go for 2 in these clear cut situations for the same stupid reasons you have been lobbying for the 1 pointer this whole time. "Well no one does this so it's stupid" even though it's stupid for them to be passing up on freebie opportunities to go for 2 because the 1 point doesn't help them whatsoever

 

[Cdog923]

You don't chase points until you absolutely need to. Down 15 in the first half is a lot different than in the second. I'd hold off on 2 pointers until the 4th.

 

[HuskerFanatic1]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

 

[ColoradoHusk]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Great point about analytics. Analytics is done through large samples of data sets. Analytics helps give people the odds or probability of something happening. However, in a one game sample things may not happen to the given probability percentage. One game is a very small sample size.

 

[Nebfanatic]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Great point about analytics. Analytics is done through large samples of data sets. Analytics helps give people the odds or probability of something happening. However, in a one game sample things may not happen to the given probability percentage. One game is a very small sample size.

bingo and therein lies the problem with going for 2 every time. The 1 pointer is more consistent in a small sample size. That being said the 2 pointer should be considered in a wider range of scenarios

 

[avfan2121]

Created an account just for this. In 2016 extra points were converted at 93.6%. That is 0.936 expected points per PAT. 2 point conversions were converted at a 48.6% rate. Multiplied by 2 points is 0.972 expected points. Over the long run it is more beneficial to go for 2. You get more points. Obviously you shouldn't go for 2 if you just tied the game up with no time on the clock. The general philosophy should be to go for 2 as long as your team can convert greater than 46.8% (.936 expected points) of the time, unless the score/clock situation calls to just kick the PAT.

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when to and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

 

[Mavric]

There are a few here who are showing they just don't understand analytics and data. Yes going for two in the described situations may get you losses but no one has mentioned the wins it may get you either.

You can't use the Oregon game as an example because that is literally one example. If you have ever seen the movie moneyball you would understand analytics a bit better. No, that team didn't win the world series, but they were better and other teams adopted their style. Analytics is never a guarantee but playing the odds can surely help. I can play blackjack 100% by the book but sometimes the cards don't come my way (or the ball doesn't bounce the right way).

Just because pro coaches aren't doing it now doesn't mean they shouldn't be. They have increased the 2 point usage this year because they are understanding more the benefits of it. Teams also thought the forward pass was too risky when it first became allowed and look at the NFL now...

Quite frankly, if a college or pro coach can't figure out with his own, unassisted brain, when and when not to go for 2, then he shouldn't be coaching and they shouldn't be paying them millions of bucks. I can see where analytics would help save time by analyizing large amts of info, like the other team's/players tendencies, etc, so as they may not have to speand as much time looking @ film, etc.

Complains about using too small a sample size.

Says that one specific decision should determine if a coach keeps his job or not.

Seems legit.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I think coaches should hire teenage kids who play Madden all day to assist them in clock management, going for 2 decisions, and when to go for it on 4th down. I always see coaches make so many mistakes in these instances, including our very own Mike Riley.

 

[HuskerFanatic1]

I think coaches should hire teenage kids who play Madden all day to assist them in clock management, going for 2 decisions, and when to go for it on 4th down. I always see coaches make so many mistakes in these instances, including our very own Mike Riley.

When I was younger I always went for it on fourth down in NCAA Football. My mistake was thinking I had my friends fooled (note, I always went for it and DID NOT have them fooled) and I also tried things like fake punts on 4th and 10 which are pretty much never converted.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I think coaches should hire teenage kids who play Madden all day to assist them in clock management, going for 2 decisions, and when to go for it on 4th down. I always see coaches make so many mistakes in these instances, including our very own Mike Riley.

When I was younger I always went for it on fourth down in NCAA Football. My mistake was thinking I had my friends fooled (note, I always went for it and DID NOT have them fooled) and I also tried things like fake punts on 4th and 10 which are pretty much never converted.

It is if you put your fastest player at Punter

 

[mnhusker]

I think it may have been touched on here but I also think that the idea of sample size the few opportunities to even go for 2 in a game adds a great deal more uncertainty to what the outcome will be in a given game. I know if I flip a coin 100 times that data will close in on 50/50. But if I only get two flips and I have to bet that they will both be heads that would be a much different type of risk and in a football game obviously the team only gets a few chances. With extra points the % is so high that it doesn't matter that you have a limited number of opportunities.

 

[Nebfanatic]

I think it may have been touched on here but I also think that the idea of sample size the few opportunities to even go for 2 in a game adds a great deal more uncertainty to what the outcome will be in a given game. I know if I flip a coin 100 times that data will close in on 50/50. But if I only get two flips and I have to bet that they will both be heads that would be a much different type of risk and in a football game obviously the team only gets a few chances. With extra points the % is so high that it doesn't matter that you have a limited number of opportunities.

Yes I touched on this and while I'm more for the aggressive use of the 2 pointer I do think this is the most valid argument against it. The analytics and numbers say over time you will score more points, and most likely that would be the outcome. The only problem is going 0 for 2 in 1 game and 2 for 2 in the next. The consistency isn't the same as a kick and it can cost you in games which are controlled by a small sample size.

 

[mnhusker]

I think it may have been touched on here but I also think that the idea of sample size the few opportunities to even go for 2 in a game adds a great deal more uncertainty to what the outcome will be in a given game. I know if I flip a coin 100 times that data will close in on 50/50. But if I only get two flips and I have to bet that they will both be heads that would be a much different type of risk and in a football game obviously the team only gets a few chances. With extra points the % is so high that it doesn't matter that you have a limited number of opportunities.

Yes I touched on this and while I'm more for the aggressive use of the 2 pointer I do think this is the most valid argument against it. The analytics and numbers say over time you will score more points, and most likely that would be the outcome. The only problem is going 0 for 2 in 1 game and 2 for 2 in the next. The consistency isn't the same as a kick and it can cost you in games which are controlled by a small sample size.

Thanks Nebfanatic I figured this string of thinking was in the thread somewhere.

 

[The Big Nebrowski]

I think coaches should hire teenage kids who play Madden all day to assist them in clock management, going for 2 decisions, and when to go for it on 4th down. I always see coaches make so many mistakes in these instances, including our very own Mike Riley.

When I was younger I always went for it on fourth down in NCAA Football. My mistake was thinking I had my friends fooled (note, I always went for it and DID NOT have them fooled) and I also tried things like fake punts on 4th and 10 which are pretty much never converted.

It's easier than that. Back in the day, they used to make this plastic mat, say, 3' x 6', and it was dyed green w white lines like a football field, and you had these plastic FB players about 8" tall on wheels and whenever it was 4th down you went for it of course because all ya had to do was bang your guy as hard as possible into the other guy's plastic men and blow em up and they'd fly all over the living room and you get the 1st.
Now that's what I call "football", right there!