Stupid two point conversions (SimpLLLLLe Jim loves 'em, and so does James Franklin)

[Tonyank]

Virginia Tech makes the list by going for two up 27-26 over Boise with over 17 minutes left on the clock.

FAIL

But if they made it, then they cover the Vbet

 

[BB73]

But if they made it, then they cover the Vbet

Since it ended up 30-33, if they'd have kicked the XP, they'd have covered the vBet. Boise was favored by 2.5 when the vbet was created. :tongue2:

 

[Bucklion]

For all the supposed brilliance of these overpaid coaches they sure do seem to make the same stupid-assed basic game management errors game after game, season after season. It's hard to watch, really.

 

[Zurp]

1. I agree that 2-point conversions are usually attempted at bad times. Blah blah blah.
2. If a team doesn't have a reliable kicker / kicking team, going for 2 is acceptable. But if a team doesn't have a reliable kicker / kicking team, they ought not consider themselves in contention for a BCS bowl game.

 

[kinch]

lane kiffin =

Am I the only one fapping to this?

 

[Jake]

The flip side is NOT going for two when you SHOULD go for two.

Miami scores a TD in the 4th quarter to get within 13 of the Bucks. Kicking the XP still leaves them two TDs short. A successful two would've pulled them within 11, keeping the FG in play.

I'm not complaining, though.

 

[Jake]

The UC bearkittens make the list by going for two down by 17 at NC State. By failing, they're still down by 3 scores. An XP keeps it within 2 scores.

They're going to lose either way, but it's still a stupid two point conversion.

 

[Tlangs]

The UC bearkittens make the list by going for two down by 17 at NC State. By failing, they're still down by 3 scores. An XP keeps it within 2 scores.

They're going to lose either way, but it's still a stupid two point conversion.

Agreed. Does cutting it to 15 instead of 16 really change much???

 

[BigJim]

Going for two is a no-brainer in that situation to me. You know you need three touch downs to pull off the miracle tie. In two of those three TDs you have to get a 2 point conversion. It's not any easier to go XP/2P/2P than it is to go 2P/2P/XP and if you're going to miss a 2P you'd rather do it ASAP so you know you'll need an extra score.

I guess I'm looking at it as the same scenario as when you're down 15 with 2:00 left. If you score a TD do you go for two? I've heard a lot of people claim you gotta go for one so that you still have a chance to tie it if/when you get the ball back. That stance just seems so illogical to me (the Cincy example is admittedly a little more questionable though because there's so much more time left).

 

[Tlangs]

i say extend the game...it puts pressure on the opposing team. You kick the extra point you are down two scores. Your opponent knows you are down 2 scores. You miss the 2, your opponent knows its over.

You can never discount the "pucker factor" on a mediocre team with a lead in the 4th. You never go for 2 until you absolutely have to.

 

[BB73]

i say extend the game...it puts pressure on the opposing team. You kick the extra point you are down two scores. Your opponent knows you are down 2 scores. You miss the 2, your opponent knows its over.

You can never discount the "pucker factor" on a mediocre team with a lead in the 4th. You never go for 2 until you absolutely have to.

I like going for 2 if the TD brings you to within 16. You obviously still need two more TDs. If a 2-point conversion is made, the margin is 14. If it's missed, there's still a chance to catch up with a pair of 8s.

You either need to hit 1-of-1 2-pointers, or 2-of-3, but without trying the first one the chance of hitting 2-of-3 is gone.

 

[BigJim]

i say extend the game...it puts pressure on the opposing team. You kick the extra point you are down two scores. Your opponent knows you are down 2 scores. You miss the 2, your opponent knows its over.

You can never discount the "pucker factor" on a mediocre team with a lead in the 4th. You never go for 2 until you absolutely have to.

Using my 2:00 example when you're down 15, the chances of tying it are something like:

1P first than 2P
100% extra point
20% get onside
20% score another TD
40% 2P conversion

2P first than 1P
40% 2P conversion
20% get onside
20% score another TD
100% extra point

The pucker factor only changes the blue part (2P conversion). So the question becomes would you rather be going for two with the offense/defense knowing that tying the game is still a TD away or would you rather do it at the end of the game when the offense/defense know the game is on the line, and how much do the percentages change for that 2P. This is where I guess you would say you'd much rather have the 1st scenario but I personally think this is debateable.

And any edge that you might gain from the pucker factor would be more than canceled out to me by having the knowledge earlier that you will have to score twice more to make it a game. For exampe, you could kick a field goal on 4th and 5 on the 25 when 58 seconds left instead of still having hope that you will tie it with a 2P (for the situations where the 2P gets missed and you wouldn't yet know it).

 

[Palpie]

i say extend the game...it puts pressure on the opposing team. You kick the extra point you are down two scores. Your opponent knows you are down 2 scores. You miss the 2, your opponent knows its over.

You can never discount the "pucker factor" on a mediocre team with a lead in the 4th. You never go for 2 until you absolutely have to.

I agree with BigJim in this case. It's a long shot either way, but I'd rather know I need three more scores than kick the xp, then miss a 2pt after the next score with even less time. Also, if you miss and are still down 17 you can kick a fg if a drive stalls. If you're at 16 you probably go for it and maybe leave points on the field.

 

[BigJim]

The pucker factor only changes the blue part (2P conversion). So the question becomes would you rather be ...

Actually, now that I think about it, the pucker factor would probably help you even more if you go for 2P first. If the opponent is really going to be impacted by it then that second touchdown should be easier if the defense knows a TD ties it pretty much 100% of the time.

 

[Saw31]

Interesting. I'm on the side of "kick the extra points until you absolutely need a 2". In the scenarios above I would take my chances with a "1 fer 1" on the 2 pointer. My reasoning is that if you did manage to get back in the game, you've obviously made a tremendous comeback and would have a lot of momentum, with a team that now "believes" it's going to win. Missing a 2 pointer earlier in the game steals wind from the sails of the comeback imo.