Go for 1 or go for 2 let’s all just agree to disagree. We should all just be thankful Kirk decided to shorten that turd of a game by 1:04.
Did we really just go for two when down 9?
- Thread starter Mr. Royce
- Start date
When you put it that way ... it would have been a sin for Iowa to win that game. They didn't deserve to win.
Are purposely being dense?
There was only enough time for one onside and one more td, and that would have been pretty unlikely.
There is zero momentum after you miss the 2pt, thats the whole point. The game is over. You need 3 points out of two chances. Period.
Good lord. Are you serious?
Its not extending hope, its about making the onside mean something so that it could possible effect whether or not they field it cleanly.
You can't be this dense. This has to be a joke.
When you go for two first you take the totally unessesary risk of making the onside meaningless.
For no gain. Theres nothing to be gained by doing it first only potential loss.
Its why no one in the ****ing nfl, or any other college team does it that way.
For no gain. Theres nothing to be gained by doing it first only potential loss.
Its why no one in the ****ing nfl, or any other college team does it that way.
First off... to the trolls on the wrong side... well done. This one goes out to all true believers...
Why is explaining simple multiplication and addition to a subhuman moron so frustrating?
Just like a fight over something insignificant with your spouse/sig other, the fight is not about the insignificant thing. The insignificant thing leads to a fight and the fight is really about a deeper problem.
What is the problem?
Arithmetic refusing barbarians are capable of believing anything and what might be worse is that these animals display a crazy level of confidence in their crazy level of ignorance. Truth to these idiots is any idea that fits conveniently into their lazily constructed self-narrative that rationalizes their selfishness and irrationally high level of self-importance. These invalids are incapable of learning, humility, and decency.
Because these people are incapable of learning, presenting an idea that is new or foreign to them is a waste of time.
Because these people are incapable of humility, it is impossible for them to even consider that they could be wrong... about anything.
To those that are trying to help spread the good word of the commutative property and how it relates to calculating a simple expected value:
These people are that stupid. Yes... that stupid.
To those that are getting mad (actually impressed you read this much...):
Global warming is Fake News!
Impeachment for Hillary!
Immigrants took all of our jobs!
You always kick the extra point first because 1 + 2 is better than 2 + 1!
Because... momentum... (based on no data)
Because... it's always been done that way... (assume football coaches know everything about everything)
Because... this is college... (based on no data)
Because... Oh yeah... what do you know?... (I'm never wrong)
...and yes, I can be an ass because 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. It's really that simple.
Why is explaining simple multiplication and addition to a subhuman moron so frustrating?
Just like a fight over something insignificant with your spouse/sig other, the fight is not about the insignificant thing. The insignificant thing leads to a fight and the fight is really about a deeper problem.
What is the problem?
Arithmetic refusing barbarians are capable of believing anything and what might be worse is that these animals display a crazy level of confidence in their crazy level of ignorance. Truth to these idiots is any idea that fits conveniently into their lazily constructed self-narrative that rationalizes their selfishness and irrationally high level of self-importance. These invalids are incapable of learning, humility, and decency.
Because these people are incapable of learning, presenting an idea that is new or foreign to them is a waste of time.
Because these people are incapable of humility, it is impossible for them to even consider that they could be wrong... about anything.
To those that are trying to help spread the good word of the commutative property and how it relates to calculating a simple expected value:
These people are that stupid. Yes... that stupid.
To those that are getting mad (actually impressed you read this much...):
Global warming is Fake News!
Impeachment for Hillary!
Immigrants took all of our jobs!
You always kick the extra point first because 1 + 2 is better than 2 + 1!
Because... momentum... (based on no data)
Because... it's always been done that way... (assume football coaches know everything about everything)
Because... this is college... (based on no data)
Because... Oh yeah... what do you know?... (I'm never wrong)
...and yes, I can be an ass because 1 + 2 = 2 + 1. It's really that simple.
I think you just became my personal hero. This quote should be put on a bumper sticker.
It's absolutely about extending hope, there's no logical argument as to why you shouldn't go for it after your first TD. You need a two point conversion to tie the game. You have to get one at some point. And by your own logic reach Iowa converting the two point should put even more pressure on Purdue to field the kick cleanly since now Iowa only needs a TD and XP to tie the game, not a TD and two point conversion.
It is about avoiding having to recover consecutive onside kicks. If you kick the extra point to start you have one meaningful onside kick and yes you still need to score and convert a two point conversion. However, going for the two point conversion first and failing then requires getting 2 onside kick recoveries in a row. You want to stay alive in the game as long as possible to put added pressure on the opponent. Give them more opportunities to make a mistake.
You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. It's weird because it's so obvious, yet you can't figure it out.
You are playing up this "pressure" to catch an onside kick angle way too much. That's a weak argument.
How many onside kicks you need depends solely on whether or not you convert the two point conversion and has absolutely no relation to when that is tried.
Using this guy's argument teams should be going for onside kicks all the time. Apparently anytime you can score and convert a point after all the momentum you will have greatly increases your odds of recovering the onside kick. Go up three late in a game, onside. Come back to tie the game up in the 4th, onside.
Every other coach goes for the extra point in this situation, vs. KF who goes for two.
Based on KFs past game-time management and strategy......I'm going to defer to the rest of the coaching population, and kick the XP.
Remember, this is the same coach that ended the first half with two minutes, 3 Time-outs, a gunslinger for a QB, and the wind at his back. He choose to run out the clock.
Based on KFs past game-time management and strategy......I'm going to defer to the rest of the coaching population, and kick the XP.
Remember, this is the same coach that ended the first half with two minutes, 3 Time-outs, a gunslinger for a QB, and the wind at his back. He choose to run out the clock.
It's very simple, you get the TD kick the extra point. If (as Iowa did) you go for 2 and don't make it - you stand a 99.9% chance of not winning the game as you would have to do an on-sides, recover, score and repeat; all within a minute. It was as if Iowa coaches just threw the f'ing towel in. KF could have trumped that call. So KF was either responsible, directly, for the 2pt conversion decision or he has lost the concept of the game.
This loss (with everything combined from dropped passes, missed blocks, not picking up the f'ing blitz, punts, returns, blown coverage, etc) falls on the coaches. They are the ones that prepare (or fail to prepare) and adjust (or fail to adjust) to what the defense is doing. According to the vids from players and coaches, Purdue (like Wiscy) didn't do things they weren't expecting... WTF does that say about our preparation!!!???
The offensive (yes in both terminologies) output by our offense falls squarely on BF. No urgency with <3minutes to play, QB "read" on 4th and more than 1 is idiotic with our QB, run Wadley in between the tackles and run Butler from the tackles out?! WTF!!!! Little use of TE's again. Punter that can't punt (use a scholly on a 6* punter if there is such a thing). I know a kid at an Iowa D3 that averages over 40yds for the season.
I can't find much on this but, how many OC's report to the AD? Isn't that like a police officer reporting to directly to the mayor instead of the Police Chief?
This loss (with everything combined from dropped passes, missed blocks, not picking up the f'ing blitz, punts, returns, blown coverage, etc) falls on the coaches. They are the ones that prepare (or fail to prepare) and adjust (or fail to adjust) to what the defense is doing. According to the vids from players and coaches, Purdue (like Wiscy) didn't do things they weren't expecting... WTF does that say about our preparation!!!???
The offensive (yes in both terminologies) output by our offense falls squarely on BF. No urgency with <3minutes to play, QB "read" on 4th and more than 1 is idiotic with our QB, run Wadley in between the tackles and run Butler from the tackles out?! WTF!!!! Little use of TE's again. Punter that can't punt (use a scholly on a 6* punter if there is such a thing). I know a kid at an Iowa D3 that averages over 40yds for the season.
I can't find much on this but, how many OC's report to the AD? Isn't that like a police officer reporting to directly to the mayor instead of the Police Chief?
Not getting the two point conversion greatly decreases an already extremely remote chance of winning, that applies regardless of when you go for two. Again extending hope does not actually increase your odds of winning.
Not getting it eroded all hope... I would rather have a chance at it. Why don't coaches go for 2 after every TD then?
Im not sure why this is such a big deal, we had to either make it then or on the next series.
We were in a little bit of a flow, and Im guessing BF saw something he liked.
Again, an overblown critique of something that really didnt matter either way.
If we had made it, it would have gave the team that much more of a boost and hope, so that point is not valid IMO.
That logic might apply if there was 6 minutes left in the game.
With 1 minute left, you keep hope alive and pressure on the team with the lead. You already know you have to onside kick at that point.
it does matter kick the extra point then go for two next time, if you miss so be it . by being down 9 you need 2 possessions, makes the onside kick a moot point.
Not much else to add to this other than I've never seen a team go for the 2 in that situation. Ever. Maybe Kirk is in on to something no other coach has figured out. Like his idea of getting defenders out of the box by adding more tightends to the formation. Maybe it's genius and that's why no one else has figured it out.
but it never got to 24 to 17 is the problem we are down 9 and have no chance compared to the very little chance we had anyway.
And not getting it after the second touchdown would have done the same thing. It's the same outcome regardless of when you fail the two point conversion.
Yeah it comes down to whether or not you convert the two point conversion, not when you try it. Its really pretty simple.
Exxept you artificially shorten the game by whatever time is left when to don't convert. The entire point is to extend the game as long as possible. That's it.
Again extending hope is not the same thing as increasing your odds to win. Waiting another week to ask a girl out doesn't get you any closer to getting laid.
Never seen a team go for 2 in that situation in 35 years of watching football. Maybe Kirk is a genius....
not sure why this is so hard to figure out. by going for 2 when we did and missing it ,we ended all hope of winning, we are still down 9 . being down 9 means recovering 2 onside kicks. by kicking and being down 8 there is still hope. i am shocked at all the people on here that cant figure this out.
There's basically no hope to start with in that situation and missing the two point conversion at any time pretty much ends what little hope there is, it doesn't matter when you miss it.
why ? they are going to play just as hard if they are up 7 or 8. up 9 they know we have to score twice in a minute.
Yes, but not getting it ended it sooner.
The primary point was that to go for it there, at the 1 minute mark, does not change the strategy. It might if there was 6 minutes left. If it doesn't change the strategy, why not guarantee that you can keep the pressure on Purdue at least one more play?
So you are right, and 99% of coaches (you know, the real experts) are wrong. LOL!
Okay. This must confuse every other coach in the land as well. If Iowa recovers the onside kick do you think Purdue plays the same defense if they were up 9 vs. 8? I'm convinced Neil Cornrich has paid posters on this board to support his client.
After going down 9, the single thing that will increase your odds of winning the most at that point is converting a two point conversion.
