You keep your momentum and kick for one.Keep the hope alive. Hate the choice.
No way do you go for two there Indiana.
- Thread starter SEPATOPTEN
- Start date
Kick the extra point and you'll only need to score once.
It’s the conventional play, but it’s wrong. There is enough time here that it’s not an awful call if they kick it, but coaches kill me when they kick it with ~10 minutes left.
I always assumed the theory was to keep it a one score game to maintain motivation vs missing the two point try and now it’s a two score game
No conversion try is automatic regardless of when it occurs in the game. Your rationale is the team will know if it needs to score once or twice. A one point try is almost automatic and therefore the team would know it only needs to score once. Wasn't that your point?
But then you end up with 4th and 5 from their 25 late not knowing if you’ll need one score or two, or knowing if you’ve still got time to run the ball because you just need one score, or if you’re in 2 minute drill. Find those things out early and plan accordingly.
Terrible call to go for 2 there. The idea is to keep yourself in the game as long as possible. You do that by only going for 2 when it's absolutely necessary.
The point is that an 8 point game isn’t a true “one score game”. It’s a score, and then another coin-flip after the score.
would you rather have the ball with one minute left in the game, and be down by 8 or 9?
I could ask the same question with 7 vs 8, unless you’re going with results-based thinking and assuming they never convert the prior 2 point attempt.
no you can't. 7 isn't assured, 8 is assured. you don't seem to understand the logic here.
One minute left? Definitely 8.
It was still in the 3rd quarter when the conversion attempt was made. If you can't make the 2-pt then, you probably aren't making it later.
It's like the 50 yard FG attempt. It was worthless because they don't have an automatic kicker.
Buckeyes done scored again. Hoosier luck has dried up.
You asked if I’d rather be down 8 or 9. Obviously 8. I’d also rather be down 7 than 8. Again, it’s important to learn whether I need 1 or 2 scores as early as possible. It’ll impact my decision making going forward.
Unless you think that the chances of converting that two point attempt rise as the game goes along (I don’t).
chasing points before you actually have to is never a good idea. Absolutely no need to go for two in that situation and make it a 2 score game when it still could have been a one score game.
that makes absolutely no sense. If you kick the extra point, you know you're still within one score. if you go for 2, you stand a good chance of kicking yourself in the nuts and needing 2 scores. the idea is to extend the game and keep yourself in it as long as possible.
If you start with assumption you are going to need to convert one two point conversion, you typically want to do that on the last TD.
The idea is maximizing the chances of winning, not “keeping yourself in it”. An 8 point game isn’t a true one-score game (though the next time an announcer recognizes it will be the first).
If this were 2 evenly matched teams, I would agree. Underdogs have to play hungry. IU was going to need a miracle and help to win.
I would agree if Indiana was going for it by not settling for a FG, but a 2 point conversion there does nothing. if you make it, it's still a touchdown game. if you miss, it's now a 2 score game. It's not like IU was down by 24 and needed to start rattling off 2 point conversion tries. IU shot themselves in the foot when the smart play is to kick the extra point and keep it a 1 score game.
Here are a couple of articles about it...
https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/down-15-go-for-2/
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/
https://www.betlabssports.com/blog/down-15-go-for-2/
http://www.footballperspective.com/...are-foolish-to-not-go-for-2-after-touchdowns/
They shot themselves in the foot with the at least 3 turnovers that they didn't turn into any points (I've been channel flipping, could be more turnovers and points scored off, but I know of 3 that resulted in 0).
Once the Bucks scored again, it made the play irrelevant. You have to stop them eventually.
By going for one - and most likely successful - IU wouldn’t have felt the need to go for that fourth down following the pick. Instead they could have punted and possibly pinned OSU deep. That became a momentum changer because they failed and OSU took over and scored.
Also, many look at going for two from the losing team’s perspective. You need to also consider the winning team, too. By failing for that two points and being up 9 opposed to most likely 8 if extra point were good, OSU can have a different outlook on play calling. When IU turned it over on downs OSU later faced a fourth and 1. Being up 9 they went for it; if up 8 they may not have as failure would have given IU decent field position needing a TD and 2-point to tie. The rational should be to keep the score within one possession.
Also, many look at going for two from the losing team’s perspective. You need to also consider the winning team, too. By failing for that two points and being up 9 opposed to most likely 8 if extra point were good, OSU can have a different outlook on play calling. When IU turned it over on downs OSU later faced a fourth and 1. Being up 9 they went for it; if up 8 they may not have as failure would have given IU decent field position needing a TD and 2-point to tie. The rational should be to keep the score within one possession.
But two guys wrote opinion articles and they're on the internet. If that isn't proof, what is??
They couldn't stop them enough nor convert on the turnovers. Buckeyes under Meyer have been a good for it on 4th down team. Good decision or not, it's irrelevant when you can't stop them other than turnovers and even worse when you get 0 points off of them.
In two weeks, nobody is going to still be thinking, "man, if Indiana had just kicked the XP and got the lead down to 8, this game would have been different!"
IU stopped them earlier on a fourth down. Knowing that Urban may have reconsidered.
So many fans, experts, coaches, etc. always talk about importance of possessions, yet want to make a decision that risks needing another possession. It’s not a one score game but a one possession game by kicking.
As to the linked articles in a previous post in this thread, they mention expected points based on stopping the other team, which is flawed analysis. You also need to consider expected points by the other team. What if you miss the two, are down 9 and opponent gets a field goal? Now you need two TDs. If you kick extra point and down 8 and give up field goal, you’re down TD, 2-pt conversion and FG. And if you miss the 2-pt now you’re right back to needing another TD.
As to the linked articles in a previous post in this thread, they mention expected points based on stopping the other team, which is flawed analysis. You also need to consider expected points by the other team. What if you miss the two, are down 9 and opponent gets a field goal? Now you need two TDs. If you kick extra point and down 8 and give up field goal, you’re down TD, 2-pt conversion and FG. And if you miss the 2-pt now you’re right back to needing another TD.
If you watched the game IU stopped OSU on a fourth down then went on to score. Later in game up 9 (opposed to possibly 8) OSU faced another fourth down, made it, and went on to score. If down 8, thus one possession game, Urban may have reconsidered going for it and instead punt.
I already mentioned previously that I flipped games and didn't focus on just this one. Hence why I wanted an explanation to understand what you meant.
I think Urban going for it on 4th down has more to do with field position and yards needed. I think the lead being 8 or 9 points is perhaps third on his criteria check list.
Didn’t intend any ill-will by my post; did consider rephrasing the first few words as I thought that could be misconstrued.
