Going for 2, down 8, with 22 seconds to go

[CuseJacket]

We just scored a TD to close the gap to 8. We have the option to kick the XP or go for 2. The announcer stated that analytics suggest you go for 2 in that situation before he even recognized we were attempting it.

As an engineer and former math nerd, my head hurt trying to think through the analytics. Fortunately, I found an explanation, in case anyone cares:

There is a relatively common game situation in which the two-point conversion can be an optimal strategy even if its likelihood is under 50%. A team down fourteen points in the final minutes must score two touchdowns while keeping their opponents scoreless in order to tie or win the game. In this situation, it is possible (but unlikely for a team) to go for two after the first score, because if the team makes it, they can kick an extra point in their next score to secure a win, while if they miss, they still have a chance to make the next two-point conversion to get to fourteen. Though the logic seems counter-intuitive, this maximizes a team's win probability. The odds of converting a two-point try either on the first attempt (securing a win) or the second (securing a tie and sending the game into overtime) are higher than the odds of missing both (securing a loss), as long as the expected probability is higher than about 39 percent.

Source: https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Two-point_conversion

Last I saw, the general odds of converting a 2-point attempt in CFB was around 44%. Playing a defense like UVA's in theory increases the odds I suppose.

 

[stech81]

We just scored a TD to close the gap to 8. We have the option to kick the XP or go for 2. The announcer stated that analytics suggest you go for 2 in that situation before he even recognized we were attempting it.

As an engineer and former math nerd, my head hurt trying to think through the analytics. Fortunately, I found an explanation, in case anyone cares:

Source: https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Two-point_conversion

Last I saw, the general odds of converting a 2-point attempt in CFB was around 44%. Playing a defense like UVA's in theory increases the odds I suppose.

I was told on the road go for the win at home take the tie and go to overtime

 

[bobongo]

We just scored a TD to close the gap to 8. We have the option to kick the XP or go for 2. The announcer stated that analytics suggest you go for 2 in that situation before he even recognized we were attempting it.

As an engineer and former math nerd, my head hurt trying to think through the analytics. Fortunately, I found an explanation, in case anyone cares:

Source: https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Two-point_conversion

Last I saw, the general odds of converting a 2-point attempt in CFB was around 44%. Playing a defense like UVA's in theory increases the odds I suppose.

But the odds of making one out of two would be about 2/3, I think. So the theory is try for it and if you don't make it, you still can tie it after the second TD. And if you make it and score the second TD, you're in the catbird seat. Or in our case, the THIRD. Man, if Tech had pulled that game out it would have been one for the ages.

 

[bobongo]

I'll tell you, when Charlie Thomas got that last onsides kick and took a couple of steps toward the goal line, I momentarily forgot he couldn't advance it and thought he was going to score. Just for one, brief, shining moment...

 

[SandySpringsJacket]

We just scored a TD to close the gap to 8. We have the option to kick the XP or go for 2. The announcer stated that analytics suggest you go for 2 in that situation before he even recognized we were attempting it.

As an engineer and former math nerd, my head hurt trying to think through the analytics. Fortunately, I found an explanation, in case anyone cares:

Source: https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Two-point_conversion

Last I saw, the general odds of converting a 2-point attempt in CFB was around 44%. Playing a defense like UVA's in theory increases the odds I

But the odds of making one out of two would be about 2/3, I think. So the theory is try for it and if you don't make it, you still can tie it after the second TD. And if you make it and score the second TD, you're in the catbird seat. Or in our case, the THIRD. Man, if Tech had pulled that game out it would have been one for the

I'll tell you, when Charlie Thomas got that last onsides kick and took a couple of steps toward the goal line, I momentarily forgot he couldn't advance it and thought he was going to score. Just for one, brief, shining moment...

I have never liked that rule about not being able to advance an onside kick. Much for exciting if you can get it and go.

 

[SandySpringsJacket]

We just scored a TD to close the gap to 8. We have the option to kick the XP or go for 2. The announcer stated that analytics suggest you go for 2 in that situation before he even recognized we were attempting it.

As an engineer and former math nerd, my head hurt trying to think through the analytics. Fortunately, I found an explanation, in case anyone cares:

Source: https://americanfootballdatabase.fandom.com/wiki/Two-point_conversion

Last I saw, the general odds of converting a 2-point attempt in CFB was around 44%. Playing a defense like UVA's in theory increases the odds I suppose.

Thanks for the explanation. I was baffled by that call too when it was made. Interesting.

 

[iceeater1969]

I like the way we went for it. We just scored- they were shocked. We had a good play - just a bad short pass to wide open qb. Showed me we were ready!!

If we get 1 extra they then know we have to go for 2 ( if by a miracle we score). They can begin thinking of what they might do in that game deciding play. I liked how we siezed that position.


The math is crazy unlikly either way but at least we didn't try inside hand off.

 

[Jophish17]

Yes, this is the right way to look at the play. I like that we’re using analytics in this way, it’s on-brand. Unfortunately, the average armchair QB does not understand the math (which is why Vegas is so profitable). It will be interesting to see if we do it again - Mike Tomlin caught a ton of grief when his similar strategy failed, people still question shifts and lack of “small ball” on baseball, etc

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I would have gone for the PAT then worried about going for two if we scored again. O’Leary used to chaff my behind chasing the extra point too early.

 

[GTJason]

The analytics game is ridiculous. It's a bunch of Football players (most coaches are former players) who only understand odds in the terms of betting and not in terms of math. These odds include analysis from every game across college football. So when Ohio state beats a cupcake or the wake army game where tons of points are scored. It takes nothing into account about the teams playing. If I tell you there is a 40% chance of mechanical failure when you fly an airplane, which part is likely to fail really matters. The analytics should inform a decision about win probably but not "tell you to go for it here"

That being said I liked the call. Our kicking situation hasn't been great and the play was there

 

[UgaBlows]

I liked it too, liked both of the 2-point plays that we ran also. Everyone on here has given CGC hell about his coaching but i thought he did a good job at the end of the game with the decisions and clock management. I really liked the fake on-sides kick that pinned them deep too, although in retrospect we should have on-side kicked then as well since our Def collapsed again

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I would have gone for the PAT then worried about going for two if we scored again. O’Leary used to chaff my behind chasing the extra point too early.

Given our low ball kicker, I like going for two. Making an EP was probably 90%?

I would have liked going to the left on the play since we went to the right the earlier conversion.

But I am seeing signs that our game day coaching is getting better. Our clock management wasn't clueless like some earlier games.

 

[yeti92]

I would have gone for the PAT then worried about going for two if we scored again. O’Leary used to chaff my behind chasing the extra point too early.

Kicking the xp is playing to tie, and seeing as we didn't stop UVA's offense all game I'm not sure that would have worked out in our favor. Go for two, if you miss you can still play for overtime, but if you get you only need the additional TD and xp to win and UVA doesn't get a chance to score.

2pt try was absolutely the right call. The play call left something to be desired for me - not horrible, but seems like we should have lined up Yates where Peje was, would have gotten a little nicer, more accurate throw. Of course it doesn't help that Sims couldn't stop tripping over his own feet.

 

[awbuzz]

It was the right call. Thought it was ballsy and considering how well the D had stopped ut UVa offense, gave us the best chance to win.

 

[stech81]

It was the right call. Thought it was ballsy and considering how well the D had stopped ut UVa offense, gave us the best chance to win.

I remember that play we stopped them.

 

[GTpdm]

The analytics game is ridiculous. It's a bunch of Football players (most coaches are former players) who only understand odds in the terms of betting and not in terms of math. These odds include analysis from every game across college football. So when Ohio state beats a cupcake or the wake army game where tons of points are scored. It takes nothing into account about the teams playing. If I tell you there is a 40% chance of mechanical failure when you fly an airplane, which part is likely to fail really matters. The analytics should inform a decision about win probably but not "tell you to go for it here"

That being said I liked the call. Our kicking situation hasn't been great and the play was there

Okay, forget the math. In this case, the “analytics” can be explained to coaches in terms of a simple logical decision tree. Under the presumption that you are going to go for the chance to win, you MUST complete a “risky” 2-pt conversion on at least one of the 2 (presumed) TDs that you score.

You are far better off knowing the result of the risky decision after the first TD, so that you can use that knowledge when deciding what to do after the second TD. You made the 2PC? Kick the PAT next time for the high-probability win. You missed that first 2PC? Well, try it again for the chance of at least a tie.

If, on the other hand, you put off the risky call until after your second TD, your first decision (to kick the PAT] was made blind to the outcome of the second play. You make the PAT then miss the 2PC? You are hosed, because you can’t go back in time and exchange the PAT call for a 2P—.you just lost the game, pal. You make the 2PC? Lucky you, you won the game despite painting yourself into a corner.

 

[4shotB]

I remember that play we stopped them.

Did you record the game???? i went to the bathroom and must have missed it!!!

 

[LongforDodd]

I like the way we went for it. We just scored- they were shocked. We had a good play - just a bad short pass to wide open qb. Showed me we were ready!!

If we get 1 extra they then know we have to go for 2 ( if by a miracle we score). They can begin thinking of what they might do in that game deciding play. I liked how we siezed that position.


The math is crazy unlikly either way but at least we didn't try inside hand off.

I recall that Sims was marginally open and it would have taken a good pass from a real QB...on the run...to complete that pass much less a pass from a non-QB on the run.

 

[Fatmike91]

Given our low ball kicker, I like going for two. Making an EP was probably 90%?

I would have liked going to the left on the play since we went to the right the earlier conversion.

But I am seeing signs that our game day coaching is getting better. Our clock management wasn't clueless like some earlier games.

I'll give CGC credit for good clock management and game management at the end of the game. That's been a sore spot with me. I also think his post loss press conference was better...

The breakeven at 38% of successful 2 point conversion is WRONG. That assumes 100% extra point makes... You have to put our realistic percentage of making an extra point into the analytics. Unfortunately it's certainly not 100%...

The spreadsheet model is actually very simple:

You win if you make the 2 point conversion on the first, and kick the extra point on the second.
You lose if you miss the 2 point conversion twice.
In all of the other scenarios you tie. So you if you calculate the win % and the lose %, the tie percentages are what's left out of 100%.

Here are some models:

2 point conversion %	Extra Point %	Win	Tie	Lose	Comments
45.0%	90%	40.50%​	29.25%​	30.25%​	Breakeven at 90% extra point
38.2%	100%	38.20%​	23.61%​	38.19%​	Breakeven at 100% extra point
37.0%	95%	35.15%​	25.16%​	39.69%​	Breakeven at 95% extra point
45.0%	90%	40.50%​	29.25%​	30.25%​	Win 40%, Lose 30%
50.0%	95%	47.50%​	27.50%​	25.00%​	Win 47.5%, Lose 25%
55.0%	95%	52.25%​	27.50%​	20.25%​	Win 52%, Lose 20%

/

 

[Fatmike91]

I remember that play we stopped them.

We stopped them on the first series and we rushed 6 on 3rd down. We rushed 3 the rest of the game and they scored at will... explain that.

/