Going for Two: Game Theory

[Enuratique]

Saw this article on Reddit the other day

I think our style of power running, coupled with an experienced OL and a bruiser of a BB in Skov, I wonder if CPJ has this rationale in his mind. I guess the flip side of the argument is last year we were really in most of the games, and often-times leading, so we didn't need to be ballsy going for 2 at unconventional times.

What say you? If we show a proficiency of scoring from 2 yards out, should we go for 2 even when we don't really need to?

 

[BBK]

I wonder if any of it has to do with keeping the kicker "fresh". I know they get plenty of warm up kicks and practice and what not, but if it were me, I wouldn't want my first in-game kick of the day to be a long feild goal in the 4th with the game on the line.

 

[DC Bee]

Take the PAT. Go for 2 if the game is on the line late.

 

[00Burdell]

I recently re-watched our game against the fleabags and wondered if we shouldn't have gone for two a few times during the game. I think UGa blocks more of our extra points than the rest of our opponents combined.

From a coaches' perspective, however, I think the risk outweighs the benefit. Because fans will only remember the games where not converting was the difference in the score (of a loss). No one will analyze the strategy even if the conclusion supports having gone for two after every TD.

So, its not really an analytical question because the data does not drive the result. What drives the result is that the fans have no patience with coaches who play the odds for long-term success. The same analysis drives going for it on 4th down. When is it a good idea?

 

[GlennW]

I recently re-watched our game against the fleabags and wondered if we shouldn't have gone for two a few times during the game. I think UGa blocks more of our extra points than the rest of our opponents combined.

From a coaches' perspective, however, I think the risk outweighs the benefit. Because fans will only remember the games where not converting was the difference in the score (of a loss). No one will analyze the strategy even if the conclusion supports having gone for two after every TD.

So, its not really an analytical question because the data does not drive the result. What drives the result is that the fans have no patience with coaches who play the odds for long-term success. The same analysis drives going for it on 4th down. When is it a good idea?

UGA blocked our kicks because they CHEATED, not because we did anything wrong. Ray Drew lined up directly over our Center and attacked him immediately as soon as he snapped the ball which is a direct violation of NCAA rules and should have been flagged on BOTH of his blocked kicks.

 

[AE 87]

UGA blocked our kicks because they CHEATED, not because we did anything wrong. Ray Drew lined up directly over our Center and attacked him immediately as soon as he snapped the ball which is a direct violation of NCAA rules and should have been flagged on BOTH of his blocked kicks.

Conspiracy Theory Post: You're Mark Richt, and the momentum has swung to GT going into overtime, and GT scores a TD. Earlier in the game, you see CPJ throwing a fit about them not leaving the long snapper alone on the blocked FG. Do you warn Ray Drew about doing this again so as to not give GT an easier shot at 2pts? Or do you tell him to do it again because you know that the SEC Ump isn't going to call it?

 

[Skeptic]

Conspiracy Theory Post: You're Mark Richt, and the momentum has swung to GT going into overtime, and GT scores a TD. Earlier in the game, you see CPJ throwing a fit about them not leaving the long snapper alone on the blocked FG. Do you warn Ray Drew about doing this again so as to not give GT an easier shot at 2pts? Or do you tell him to do it again because you know that the SEC Ump isn't going to call it?

We need a timeout. As for going for two, why go for it when the situation doesn't demand it?? Not to mention the downer that would be for the O line. Going for it on 4th and 2 from the 45 is a lot different, and failure has fewer consequences. Now, if you want to do the HS coach's philosophy of never punting, always going for two, and squib kicking every kickoff, there's a game changer. As I recall he had a great won/lost record though opposing coaches did not like him very much.

 

[deeeznutz]

With Chip Kelly at the helm Oregon went for 2 more often than not, score notwithstanding. And their fans absolutely loved it (granted they didn't lose much, so it never really came back to bite them). I think if you develop that type of always attacking attitude, fans are much more willing to go along with it. Sort of how our fans have stopped questioning the going for it on 4th down thing. It becomes kind of an identity. If Paul ever wanted to try this out, I think our fanbase would be cool with it.

 

[danny daniel]

We need a timeout. As for going for two, why go for it when the situation doesn't demand it?? Not to mention the downer that would be for the O line. Going for it on 4th and 2 from the 45 is a lot different, and failure has fewer consequences. Now, if you want to do the HS coach's philosophy of never punting, always going for two, and squib kicking every kickoff, there's a game changer. As I recall he had a great won/lost record though opposing coaches did not like him very much.

If you win big you will not be liked by the opposition, but if you win honestly you will be respected. I know of a coach that rarely punted, always squib kicked off, and always went for two on PATs. His winning percentage was 74% over 25 seasons (he also often squeezed home runners from third base with the suicide bunt in baseball). It was with younger players. I would not recommend his football strategy at the college level, although I do believe in judicious use of fourth downs to keep drives alive. And I love it when the opposition hates to play you (CPJ is ingraining us in that situation). That hate is athletic respect.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Going for two should be the default position, except for times where we score in the final minute or so and a tie would prolong the game or where a false start or procedure penalty backs up the kick to the seven yard line. I believe the math has been done on this several times (and I'll try to find the link), but the point expectancy goes up if you go for two every time. It's really no different than bunting in baseball - bunting has been shown to decrease the run expectancy, but in certain circumstances it can increase the likelihood of scoring a single run.

 

[AE 87]

I don't think that there's been a year where 2pt success rate has been as high as 1/2 of 1pt success rate. Of course, going for 2 probably happens only 5-10% of TDs, so there may be a bias because the better teams who could score 2pt tries more regularly don't need to try them at all.

Data from page 117 of http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2012/fbs.pdf

 

[00Burdell]

UGA blocked our kicks because they CHEATED,

Of course they cheated. But the question is should one go for two more often than just the obvious cases. Unless you are making the point that one should factor in the fact that UGag lies and cheats and gets away with it into the decision. Which is fine but otherwise, your post is a separate issue.

 

[Architorture23]

Conspiracy Theory Post: You're Mark Richt, and the momentum has swung to GT going into overtime, and GT scores a TD. Earlier in the game, you see CPJ throwing a fit about them not leaving the long snapper alone on the blocked FG. Do you warn Ray Drew about doing this again so as to not give GT an easier shot at 2pts? Or do you tell him to do it again because you know that the SEC Ump isn't going to call it?

I'd do it every time. Whats the penalty if you get caught? Move the PAT kick up a yard and a half?

Or does some penalty get assessed on the kickoff?

 

[AE 87]

I'd do it every time. Whats the penalty if you get caught? Move the PAT kick up a yard and a half?

Or does some penalty get assessed on the kickoff?

Yeah, I think it's move it to the 1 1/2. That's the basis of the conspiracy. Would you want to give GT the 1 1/2 for 2pt conversion in overtime of that game? Richt had to know that his SEC ump wouldn't call it.

By the way, it was called against NC State in our game on a field goal try, good enough for 15 yds and a 1st down iirc.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Never go for 2 until you have to. I don't like chasing points.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Run a toss sweep to the open side of the field with Lucas Cox receiving the toss. 100% of the time Lucas vs. strong safety, Lucas is going to win the Bo/Boz contest. Could we do that with Marcus Marshall? Guaranteed 2 pt. conversion.

 

[Skeptic]

Yeah, I think it's move it to the 1 1/2. That's the basis of the conspiracy. Would you want to give GT the 1 1/2 for 2pt conversion in overtime of that game? Richt had to know that his SEC ump wouldn't call it.

By the way, it was called against NC State in our game on a field goal try, good enough for 15 yds and a 1st down iirc.

I'm probably alone in this but here conspiracy gets the blame due bad officials. I am way more upset with that stupid no-call "fumble" return for a touchdown than banging the center up on FGs. I sure would like to know what complaint and film if any Johnson and the AD lodged with governing game officials the next week.

 

[ilovetheoption]

I don't think that there's been a year where 2pt success rate has been as high as 1/2 of 1pt success rate. Of course, going for 2 probably happens only 5-10% of TDs, so there may be a bias because the better teams who could score 2pt tries more regularly don't need to try them at all.

Data from page 117 of http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/2012/fbs.pdf

I feel like this pretty much decides it for me.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I think GT under CPJ with smash mouth, run it down your throat or pitch it or short pass it should go for it almost* EVERY TIME early in the game.

Our expectancy has to be higher than 50% to get 3 yards if we try all the time for OUR offense. I couldn't find the stats form last year (or any previous year) other than successful attempts.

Here's the NFL stats where for rushing, the success rate was 61.7%. I should check to see if we have a good rush ...... good summary about when to go for it "So should coaches go for 2 more often than not? Perhaps. The score and time remaining would ultimately dictate the strategy in each situation, but as long as the game is a point-maximization contest, which is usually until the end of the 3rd quarter, I'd say it's good idea. And in the end-game, when an extra point ties, but a 2-point conversion takes the lead, it would almost certainly be a good idea, all other things being equal."
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html

Go big or go home. I want to go for 2 every time early in the game to hear the lamentations of their women and crush the opponents spirit.

* going for it should also be an in game decision where CPJ sees whether we are opening the holes and getting blast off the line or have only scored by a open pass after getting stuffed on the line. Almost every team last year we could run on so we should usually be able to impose our will. But it depends on the game flow and match ups.

 

[deeeznutz]

I think GT under CPJ with smash mouth, run it down your throat or pitch it or short pass it should go for it almost* EVERY TIME early in the game.

Our expectancy has to be higher than 50% to get 3 yards if we try all the time for OUR offense. I couldn't find the stats form last year (or any previous year) other than successful attempts.

Here's the NFL stats where for rushing, the success rate was 61.7%. I should check to see if we have a good rush ...... good summary about when to go for it "So should coaches go for 2 more often than not? Perhaps. The score and time remaining would ultimately dictate the strategy in each situation, but as long as the game is a point-maximization contest, which is usually until the end of the 3rd quarter, I'd say it's good idea. And in the end-game, when an extra point ties, but a 2-point conversion takes the lead, it would almost certainly be a good idea, all other things being equal."
http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/12/almost-always-go-for-2-point.html

Go big or go home. I want to go for 2 every time early in the game to hear the lamentations of their women and crush the opponents spirit.

* going for it should also be an in game decision where CPJ sees whether we are opening the holes and getting blast off the line or have only scored by a open pass after getting stuffed on the line. Almost every team last year we could run on so we should usually be able to impose our will. But it depends on the game flow and match ups.

I agree with this. You know how it's always fun watching opposing coaches going against their own tendencies and going for it on 4th down early in the game? It'd be great to see those same risk-averse coaches realize they have to start going for two. It takes them out of their comfort zone and makes them play OUR game. Advantage GT