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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
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.
It's obviously not the little card Kirk pulls out to write on...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
It's obviously not the little card Kirk pulls out to write on...
To be fair, getting two yards usually takes Iowa three tries.At one point in time with BF, Iowa failed on 10 straight attempts.
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.
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.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
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 % |
Neither have very good odds to begin with.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?
At one point in time with BF, Iowa failed on 10 straight attempts.
Yes. All 10 failed attempts.With Brian?
So did 10,000 othersI 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…