Off Season Banter

[FredJacket]

With offense we run, would anyone think we should be going for 2 after every TD. Obvious exception, PAT gives you 1 PT lead late in game.

Related: The book, 'Scorecasting' is quite interesting if you're into seeing evidence that debunks some common "by the book" decisions coaches make or things we take for granted as fans.

 

[jeffgt14]

No. I'm not a fan of ever going for 2 unless you have to. Take the automatic point. Failing to convert a 2 point conversion causes you to lose momentum. Converting a 2 point conversion doesn't create any more momentum then just kicking the XP.

 

[tech_wreck47]

No. I'm not a fan of ever going for 2 unless you have to. Take the automatic point. Failing to convert a 2 point conversion causes you to lose momentum. Converting a 2 point conversion doesn't create any more momentum then just kicking the XP.

I don't see it losing momentum imo but I still say take the 1 if you don't get the 2 points it can come back to hurt you, especially if you miss 2 or 3 a game.

 

[cuttysark]

We would have gone for 2 points after every TD the last 4 years if CPJ hadn't promised Butker during his recruitment that he would let him rewrite the GT scoring records.

 

[alentrekin]

Care to summarize the argument and / or point to the data for those of us without the book?

 

[iceeater1969]

I wonder about doing the onside kick after we score.


Early this year when our defense was soft after the kick off.
It seemed to only take a few downs and the opponent was at the 50 (25 yd line plus 2 first downs). When they got into the red zone we did seem to be more effective.

If we are going very very seldomly stop them, why not just do the onside kick? What I like is conserving defense of , possibly recovering the kick, and in an odd way being aggressive.
If we regularly did this we could get damn good. This would require other teams to use practice time for this prep. We may use well trained reserves and to match them they may have to play more athletic starters .

It gets down to the percentages to decide if an acceptable plan.
What percent do they get to the 50 and what percent do we recover?
80%and 25% ??
90% and 50%!

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

O'Leary was one that used to drive me crazy. He would go for two when behind, way too early. Seems he would be chasing points the rest of the game.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I like going for two every time until the end of the game with our highly reliable running offense at getting 2-3 yards. The chance of converting only needs to be greater than 50% to make it worthwhile.

And I like it even more when we are ahead. Converting puts extra pressure on teams not used to going for two who are forced to when we convert.

But unfortunately, I can't get the stats to support my argument. It appears that combining the TDs with 1XP attempt data for the last four years, we have tried 9 times and made it once. (0 for 0 in 2016, 1 for 3 in 2015, 0 for 6 in 2014, 0 for 0 in 2013). If it didn't work in 2014, it is a bad idea.

I'm sure someone will point out if I have a Gross Conceptual Error:
TD, 1XP and 2XP data: http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/255/scoring/index.html
EP kicking data: http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/team/255/kicking/index.html

 

[Eastman]

Wonder what the statistics are when a penalty occurs and the distance is cut by half? Those times are few but imho I would go for two then in most cases.

 

[BC_Jacket]

O'Leary was one that used to drive me crazy. He would go for two when behind, way too early. Seems he would be chasing points the rest of the game.

The Clemson OT loss in 2001 was a prime example of that.

 

[Towaliga]

With offense we run, would anyone think we should be going for 2 after every TD. Obvious exception, PAT gives you 1 PT lead late in game.

I wonder about doing the onside kick after we score.

Since this is a "what if..." banter session, I know it's an apple to oranges comparison, but there is a HS coach in Arkansas that operates under the philosophy of always go for 2, always onside kick (he has 12 different variations of onside kicks that he uses), and never punt. He won't even let his team field punts, feeling there is a chance for a fumble. In 12 seasons at Pulaski Academy, he has an 85% winning record and has at least 5 state championships and a couple of runner-ups in Class 5A. He once played a team that has a student body 5X the size of Pulaski (Pulaski only has 350 students), and was winning by a score of 29-0 before their opponent ran a single offensive play (They finally won by a score of 64-34).

One final note: I'm not saying GT should try it!

 

[FredJacket]

Since this is a "what if..." banter session, I know it's an apple to oranges comparison, but there is a HS coach in Arkansas that operates under the philosophy of always go for 2, always onside kick (he has 12 different variations of onside kicks that he uses), and never punt. He won't even let his team field punts, feeling there is a chance for a fumble. In 12 seasons at Pulaski Academy, he has an 85% winning record and has at least 5 state championships and a couple of runner-ups in Class 5A. He once played a team that has a student body 5X the size of Pulaski (Pulaski only has 350 students), and was winning by a score of 29-0 before their opponent ran a single offensive play (They finally won by a score of 64-34).

One final note: I'm not saying GT should try it!

This Pulaski coach & numbers are heavily analyzed in the book Scorecasting. I do "feel" like I agree, since it's High School, it's not a perfect comparison; but I find the arguments interesting. But that's just my hunch. Which the book would mock.

The book does make a pretty good case that coaches simply ignore the statistical significance of some data & make decisions that lower their odds of "success" simply because it's out of the norm. Basic groupthink (my word).

The best football example is refusing to go for it on 4th & short.

 

[DvilleJacket]

The Clemson OT loss in 2001 was a prime example of that.

Wasn't that the Woody Dantzler game?

 

[BC_Jacket]

Wasn't that the Woody Dantzler game?

Yep. O'Leary went for 2 points three times that day and failed on each. The first attempt was as early as mid-way thru the 2nd quarter. The offense basically chased their tails the rest of the day. Manget's FG at the end of regulation should've been the game winner. Instead it only put us in OT where Woody Dantzler capped off his record day.

 

[Boomergump]

I could see going for 2 way more often, however, game situation has to dictate what you do. For example, there is no wisdom in going for 2 if you have a chance to go up 9 with an XP with a few minutes left in the game.