Good point.
It wasn’t a mainstream decision. But still a nearly meaningless decision.
Did we really just go for two when down 9?
- Thread starter Mr. Royce
- Start date
Good point.
It wasn’t a mainstream decision. But still a nearly meaningless decision.
Another good point.
The game is also over if you miss the 2 pt try after the second theoretical score.
In essence, the decision had almost zero impact, other than ending our misery a little sooner.
When it comes the coaching, I’m much more concerned about the game week preparation and game planning than I am with this decision. The game was lost a million different ways, long before we went for 2 down 9 with a minute left.
Anyone who thinks going for two and failing, was a good decision in that situation is simply a KF apologist. Commentators, coaching community, and everyone else thinks bad decision.
I would scratch my head if I saw a JR. High team do the same thing in that situation.
I would scratch my head if I saw a JR. High team do the same thing in that situation.
Before a string of events occurs, you can assign a probability to the overall picture. As each event unfolds, the probability of favorable outcome adjusts because of what has actually happened at each step. Your original probability of the whole is moot because all that matters are the steps that are yet to occur.
Immediately after our TD with 1:04 left, you could assign a probability to tying the game.
You need all these 4 events to be successful: another touchdown, an onside kick, a 2-pt conversion and a 1-pt conversion, all within 1:04
I don't know what chance of success is but lets say 10% chance.
If you first attempt and succeed at the 2-pt conversion, your probability goes up because you've checked off the more difficult conversion, and you still only need to fulfill the other 3 events. Let's say now 15% chance
If you first attempt and succeed at the 1-pt conversion, your probability goes up but not as much because you've checked off the easier conversion,and you still only need to fulfill the remaining 3 events. Let's say 11% chance.
If you first attempt the 2-pt conversion and fail, your probability goes way down to almost nothing because you have just added two extra events: another successful onside kick and some kind of score.
Immediately after our TD with 1:04 left, you could assign a probability to tying the game.
You need all these 4 events to be successful: another touchdown, an onside kick, a 2-pt conversion and a 1-pt conversion, all within 1:04
I don't know what chance of success is but lets say 10% chance.
If you first attempt and succeed at the 2-pt conversion, your probability goes up because you've checked off the more difficult conversion, and you still only need to fulfill the other 3 events. Let's say now 15% chance
If you first attempt and succeed at the 1-pt conversion, your probability goes up but not as much because you've checked off the easier conversion,and you still only need to fulfill the remaining 3 events. Let's say 11% chance.
If you first attempt the 2-pt conversion and fail, your probability goes way down to almost nothing because you have just added two extra events: another successful onside kick and some kind of score.
Last edited:
Not really. It doesn't really pertain to the argument at hand. You need those four events yes, we know that. Your odds go up if you get the two right away, obviously. Your odds go down if you don't get the two right away, again obvious.
The whole argument though is when to go for the two. You're odds go even further down when you don't get the two at the end of the game with no time left, versus not getting the two earlier in the game. But this has already been explained multiple times with multiple articles linked to try and help you understand. You just aren't going to get it though, and that's ok.
2 pt conversion (50% chance of success)
-Make 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (20% chance of success)
-TD (20% chance of success)
-XP (100% chance of success)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.5)(.2)(.2).
-2% chance of winning in this scenario
-Miss 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (20%)
-TD (20%)
-XP (100%)
-Onside kick (20%)
-FG (50%)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.5)(.2)(.2)(.2)(.5)
-0.2% chance of winning in this scenario
XP (100% chance of success). Now need:
-Onside kick (20%)
-TD (20%)
-2pt (50%)
-Make 2 pt conversion
-Game tied
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.2)(.2)(.5)
-2% chance of winning in this scenario
-Miss 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (Only 10% chance of success, because offense has likely run clock down to almost zero on previous possession)
-FG (1% chance of success, offense ran clock down on previous possession)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.2)(.2)(.5)(.1)(.01)
-0.002% chance of winning in this scenario
-Make 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (20% chance of success)
-TD (20% chance of success)
-XP (100% chance of success)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.5)(.2)(.2).
-2% chance of winning in this scenario
-Miss 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (20%)
-TD (20%)
-XP (100%)
-Onside kick (20%)
-FG (50%)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.5)(.2)(.2)(.2)(.5)
-0.2% chance of winning in this scenario
XP (100% chance of success). Now need:
-Onside kick (20%)
-TD (20%)
-2pt (50%)
-Make 2 pt conversion
-Game tied
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.2)(.2)(.5)
-2% chance of winning in this scenario
-Miss 2 pt conversion. Now need:
-Onside kick (Only 10% chance of success, because offense has likely run clock down to almost zero on previous possession)
-FG (1% chance of success, offense ran clock down on previous possession)
-Total probability of all events needed to win: (.2)(.2)(.5)(.1)(.01)
-0.002% chance of winning in this scenario
your lack of common sense still amazes me and thats ok. with 7 or 8 minutes left in the game going for 2 first might be the thing to do but you dont seem to understand that there was only 1:04 left . if we get the ball back with the onside kick then we need to score in about 30 seconds since we will need to get the ball AGAIN with another onside kick and get close enough to kick a field goal or score a TD. if we miss the 2 pt.er with the second TD after kicking the PAT with the first one most of us understand that the game is over. that is why we need to make it a one possession game by kicking the first PAT. your are SO caught up on the odds of things, what are the odds of recovering 2 onside kicks in a row ?
Last edited:
Yeah shame on me for being caught up with "the odds of things". That's just crazy talk. Why would someone want to be caught up with the odds of things when considering strategy at the end of the game?
You've proven yourself to be an idiot. I thought I could show you the light, but you are simply too stupid. I wish you luck.
The guy who still doesn't realize that you must recover two onside kicks no matter when you don't convert the 2 point conversion...
Still incorrect.
There is no proper order. Nothing is right or wrong. Of all the crap in that game, it is probably the absolute dumbest thing possible to harp on. Yet, here we are nearing page ten.
I hope to God we beat Nebraska tomorrow, and I never have to hear another idiotic opinion about such a nonissue ever again.
Oh my god this can't be real.
I can only assume this is one person arguing with themselves.
I often overstate the significance of events.... But I can say without a doubt this is the dumbest argument I have ever seen.
I can only assume this is one person arguing with themselves.
I often overstate the significance of events.... But I can say without a doubt this is the dumbest argument I have ever seen.
Let me try and explain it for the young and those who don't understand risk reward.
The number one goal of that possession was to get it to a one possession game. If you're 9 points down after scoring a touchdown, you alway go for one point. That obviously gets you to a one possession. If you go for two and don't gt it, the touchdown becomes meaningless. Since there is about a 50% chance of getting two *I'm being very generous ) the game is over if you don't get it.
If you get the one point extra point, the game is a possession game. Goal achieved and game on. What many don't understand is that Purdue's play calling probably chances completely if they are protecting 8 points vs 9points. Them being ahead by only 8 helps our defense in stopping them and helps our offense in that they are playing for an overtime comeback.
Im not going to dive into the science of probabilities to support this. If you want that knowledge, you will need to take some classes
OMG! I can't believe this thread has gone on for this long. Talk about a testosterone-filled p*ssing contest from straight outta h3ll. We got Monday morning QB's, statisticians, strategy experts, Rain Men, everybody in a free-for-all.
Please keep it going. I think it will be about summer of 2019 before anyone sways someone to his side.
Please keep it going. I think it will be about summer of 2019 before anyone sways someone to his side.
pouchy can not comprehend the need to make it a 1 possession game. he is stuck on the ODDS of the 2pt conversion.
I am both fascinated and entertained that this is worth arguing. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for someone to say "you convinced me - I am actually a moron". It could happen on any page.
This is what message boards are all about. I will read it, enjoy it and insult it.
That's a real clever insult there mamabeef. I can't believe you've made it this far in this thread and still don't understand my argument.
I'm guessing papa will never concede that my argument actually makes a little bit of sense. I will say though, the only argument I've actually heard that could even possibly support his side wasn't even made by him, but it is the whole "momentum" aspect of kicking the extra point. I think it's a weak argument, but at least you can see how it could possibly have some affect. Unlike papa's mindless "You kick the extra point cause you want to keep it a one possession game" argument. Which makes no sense because it completely ignores the fact that you will need to go for two at some point either way.
as stated before, the science of probabilities and risk management defines that you go for one point. Success at this changes the plays Purdue would have called vs us not making th two point conversion. This who don understand this is lacking clarity and/or education in the science.
To debate the premise is folly
here is something for you to ponder pouchy. since we missed the first 2 point conversion, we DO NOT have to go for a 2 pt er if we score again . the smartest thing to do is kick the next extra point . we are down 9 why go for 2 ? its not going to give us the lead. does not make a difference if we are 1 or 2 we still need a field goal to win.
but you have lost the argument . i just shot you out of the water with my post below! all hail papa winner of the argument !
but there is a proper order depending on whether you are successful. by missing the first 2 pter there is no need to go it again since we are down 9. going for 2 is silly, it wont give us the lead why go for it, we still need a field goal to win . if this argument is so stupid why did you comment on it ? you were not forced to read it.
It is better to remain silent rather than confirm your lack of knowledge on the science of game theory. All the probabilities of scoring a td and extra point go out the window if you fail at the two point conversion. Its called a Dependent probability. Future points are meaningless if you fail on the two point conversion because the game is already decided. If I use layman words for you, it means you stay in the game as long as you can when trying to catch the other team
The U of I offers a class on this. take it
