Anyone know the obvious rules on when you go for two? We were down 24 fairly late, why not start going for two right away? Tough to do three times in a row, but three scores to tie would have been sufficient.
Going for two
- Thread starter Lootownguy
- Start date
At one point in time with BF, Iowa failed on 10 straight attempts.
I understand your thinking. That said....I honestly don't think anyone on Earth thinks the offense could successfully executed 3 straight 2 point conversions. We had enough possessions to win the game, even after our first TD. Not sure what is the correct protocol given the situation we were in.
Making the two point conversation would make it a two possession game versus a three possession game if going for one. The question at hand is, does Iowa have a better chance to convert three straight two point conversions or score on three straight possessions after the first TD?
Anyone know the obvious rules on when you go for two? We were down 24 fairly late, why not start going for two right away? Tough to do three times in a row, but three scores to tie would have been sufficient.
I Know that its late but here it is...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3_MLvZnrjaw/VV0z3sVJ99I/AAAAAAAABt4/Sp68bqgC9kg/s1600/PAT+or+Go+for+2+Chart.jpg
its what I use
I Know that its late but here it is...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3_MLvZnrjaw/VV0z3sVJ99I/AAAAAAAABt4/Sp68bqgC9kg/s1600/PAT+or+Go+for+2+Chart.jpg
its what I use
It's obviously not the little card Kirk pulls out to write on...
They should have gone for two. Even if they didn’t get it, they would still need three scores, just the same for kicking the extra point. It amazes me that the longest tenured coach in D1 college football didn’t know that. What worse, obviously no one on the staff must have either. It shows how little Ferentz knows about clock and game management. The next stupidest thing is to call a timeout to argue with the refs…oh yeah, he did that, too.
To be fair, getting two yards usually takes Iowa three tries.
What do you think the probabilities are for Iowa converting any given 1-pt conversion and any given 2-pt conversion? My thoughts are 95% and 33%, respectively.
Given that, statistics would say that going for three 2-pt conversions would give a ~4% chance of successfully scoring 24 points, but a ~74% chance of scoring less than 21 points. Here's the table (based on Monte Carlo simulation with N=1e6):
| Score Attained | 1-Pt Conversions - Outcome Prob | 2-Pt Conversions - Outcome Prob |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | 0.0121 % | 30.0949 % |
| 19 | 0.7118 % | 0 % |
| 20 | 13.4489 % | 44.3860 % |
| 21 | 85.8272 % | 0 % |
| 22 | 0 % | 21.9099 % |
| 23 | 0 % | 0 % |
| 24 | 0 % | 3.6092 % |
So on the one hand, going for two would give a 25% chance of having a FG to win it vs an 86% chance of a FG to tie going for one, and on the other hand going for two gives a 74% chance of needing another TD vs a 14% chance of needing the additional score when going for one.
Neither have very good odds to begin with.
They were fine with the route they went. Best not to overthink things ourselves with this awful offense.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I actually walked out of Kinnick last night when there was absolutely no sense of urgency on offense at the end of the third quarter. We burned around 5 minutes and we’re going no where…
The odds of making 3 2-pt attempts is very slim. If you miss on two of them, there is no chance to tie and you need 4 TD's to win. If you miss on 1 of them, you need need 2 TD's and a FG to win.
If you make the first 2 2pt attempts and the FG, you still need another TD to win.
BUT, the only way possible to tie with 3 scores is by going for two.
🤷♀️
If you make the first 2 2pt attempts and the FG, you still need another TD to win.
BUT, the only way possible to tie with 3 scores is by going for two.
🤷♀️
Similar threads
