The 2 Point Conversion Debate

[AverageJoesGym]

That's the simple theory to "chasing points". When there is 20 minutes of football to play you don't start taking 30% over 99%. At that stage you have no idea of the twists and turns ahead. You are playing bad odds, and I've seen it come back to bite a team more often than not....

 

I agree, the only time it makes sense is in an end of game type situation or when you can't be sure that you'll get another possession. The odds just don't favor it otherwise.

[Habib]

That's the simple theory to "chasing points". When there is 20 minutes of football to play you don't start taking 30% over 99%. At that stage you have no idea of the twists and turns ahead. You are playing bad odds, and I've seen it come back to bite a team more often than not....

 

And I'm going to spin off of these numbers here. Following the odds at a 30% success rate you would complete the 2-point conversion once every 3-4 times. Even if you could do it once every three times, which is a slightly more favorable percentage, kicking the field goal would garner more points.

[All Play No Work]

The worst mistake coaches make is chasing points when (with significant time left) they score a TD and are down 2 points. Say 21-19. Sure going for 2 and making it will tie the game.

 

But not making it can lead to being down two scores. If Team A scores again its 28-19 and you are down two scores. If you had kicked it would have been 21-20, and now 28-20 and you are still within one score.

[iPapi]

My argument during the UK/UofL game was about going for 2 after the TD put you up 1 point. All of those moments were in the 2nd half, and with the way both teams were moving the ball we could safely assume that at least UofL could move into field goal range at any point in time (sorry, UK's kicker sucks).

 

With that being said, I would have played to be ahead by a field goal as opposed to 1 point at least one time during the second half.

 

That's just me, but I'm a gambling man anyway.

[mobaar]

If you're arguing going for 2 before you absolutely have to, you're making a bad assumption.

 

You're assuming that you will make the conversion. Odds are strongly against that happening. So now, instead of being 1 point closer or 1 point further ahead, you're 1 point farther back.

[iPapi]

If you're arguing going for 2 before you absolutely have to, you're making a bad assumption.

 

You're assuming that you will make the conversion. Odds are strongly against that happening. So now, instead of being 1 point closer or 1 point further ahead, you're 1 point farther back.

 

 

That's conservative, in my opinion.

 

The only thing I am assuming is that a field goal beats an opponents 1 point lead or its 2 point lead.

[mobaar]

That's conservative, in my opinion.

 

The statistics don't care about your opinion.

[5wide]

My argument during the UK/UofL game was about going for 2 after the TD put you up 1 point. All of those moments were in the 2nd half, and with the way both teams were moving the ball we could safely assume that at least UofL could move into field goal range at any point in time (sorry, UK's kicker sucks).

 

With that being said, I would have played to be ahead by a field goal as opposed to 1 point at least one time during the second half.

 

That's just me, but I'm a gambling man anyway.

 

That's the whole point...both teams were moving the ball and scoring consistently. Even if U of L does come back and take the lead, you'd have to feel as a UK coach that your team would certainly answer. There's no need to risk it at that point.

 

The argument to go for two earlier in a game is much stronger when you have serious doubts about your ability to get the ball in the end zone again...if you're moving the ball and scoring with relative ease, it's really stupid to risk it, IMO.