ADVERTISEMENT

Gophers' Claeys will ‘always’ go for 2 when up by 7 late; Agree? Or kick the Xtra Point?

Franisdaman

HB King
Nov 3, 2012
101,928
139,105
113
Heaven, Iowa
Agree?

From the St Paul MN Pioneer Press:

By ANDY GREDER | agreder@pioneerpress.com
September 2, 2016 at 6:33 pm


Tracy Claeys doesn’t need a chart to tell him when to go for two, particularly when his team is up by seven.

“We’ll always do it,” the Gophers football coach said Friday.

In Thursday night’s opener, the Gophers failed on a two-point conversion attempt in the waning moments of a 30-23 win over Oregon State at TCF Bank Stadium.

“The whole reasoning is this: I think there is a great reward there for very little risk,” Claeys said.

With 1 minute, 27 seconds left in the fourth quarter, Gophers quarterback Mitch Leidner scored on a sneak to build a seven-point lead. Rather than kick the extra point, Minnesota lined up for a two-point attempt before calling a timeout — because a player was late to the huddle, not because Claeys was having second thoughts.

Claeys, who earned a mathematics education degree from Kansas State in 1994, knew he could put the game away with a nine-point lead and was comfortable with a seven-point lead.

“If we don’t get it, and the other team goes down and scores, 95 percent of the time they are kicking (the extra point), and we are going to overtime anyway,” he said.

Big Ten Network color commentator and former Gophers coach Glen Mason wasn’t convinced.

“When you are playing the percentages, and you have a good defense, you don’t do this,” said Mason, who coached Minnesota 1997-2006.

Leidner’s subsequent pass to freshman receiver Tyler Johnson fell incomplete, giving the Beavers a little bit of life. But the Gophers defense snuffed out Oregon State’s rally attempt without giving up a first down.

The point was rendered moot, but Claeys’ decision was a hot topic of discussion afterward.

“Your kids are feeling good, theirs aren’t feeling good,” Claeys said Friday. “I think you’re going to get that two-point conversion more often than you’re not.”

The success rate of two-point conversions in the Football Bowl Subdivision last year was 39 percent, according to ESPN Sports & Info. Last year, the Gophers were 3 for 3 on two-point conversions.

In 2015, place-kicker Ryan Santoso was 31 for 31 on PATs, and new kicker Emmit Carpenter was 3 for 3 Thursday and hit on a 45-yard field-goal attempt.

The Gophers were in a similar situation against Illinois last November. Shannon Brooks busted off a 75-yard touchdown run for a 30-23 lead with 85 seconds left at TCF Bank Stadium. On the two-point try, Leidner converted on a rush to make it 32-23.

Game over.

“You can survey a bunch of people; they’re going to (say,) ‘I’m kicking the (extra point),’ ” Claeys hypothesized.

There is a scenario in which he would kick in that situation: if the Gophers are a big underdog on the road.

The whole story:

http://www.twincities.com/2016/09/02/gophers-claeys-will-always-go-for-two-when-up-by-seven-late/
 
I am going to catch flack for this, but I completely agree with him. even had OSU scrored they would have kicked PAT to tie and go into OT worst case scenario. I think it is the right call. Just because most coaches would kick the PAT doesn't mean Claeys was wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1G and 24Hawkeye7
Reward > Risk. Seems reasonable to me.

The only way this could go badly is if a) you miss the 2 pt. convo, b) your opponent scores a TD, c) decides to go for 2 and risk losing if they miss, and d) they convert the 2 pt conversion and e) you fail to get a FG in response.

Otherwise if A and B happen, and they kick, you're going to overtime.

A lot has to go wrong for you to lose in regulation, whereas if you make it, you're up 2 possessions. It's worth it.
 
The devil's advocate would say if you're up by seven and you kick a PAT to go up 8 or convert 2-pt to go up 9, there isn't much advantage. The opponent still needs TD/1pt PAT and a FG to beat you either way. (I acknowledge 3 FGs would tie rather than beat you)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fan In Black
Let's assume Minnesota is up by 7 late after scoring a TD.
Let's also assume the opposing team will respond with a TD before the game ends.

Claeys's scenario (Minny going for 2) is either
(a) a tie game due to them not converting, or
(b) a win.

A is more likely, since 2 point conversions fail more than 50% of the time.

The conventional scenario (Minny kicking the XP) is either
(a) a tie game due to the opposing team converting the 2 pointer, or
(b) a win due to the other team not converting

B is more likely, since 2 point conversions fail more than 50% of the time.

Seems like the conventional scenario, kicking the extra point, is the way to go.
 
Reward > Risk. Seems reasonable to me.

The only way this could go badly is if a) you miss the 2 pt. convo, b) your opponent scores a TD, c) decides to go for 2 and risk losing if they miss, and d) they convert the 2 pt conversion and e) you fail to get a FG in response.

Otherwise if A and B happen, and they kick, you're going to overtime.

A lot has to go wrong for you to lose in regulation, whereas if you make it, you're up 2 possessions. It's worth it.
It could also go badly if the other team goes down and scores a touchdown, and then you lose in OT, or they go for 2 and beat you.

Kicking the extra point means worst case scenario, you go OT, and there is less than a 50% they get two after scoring a TD anyway.

It's not the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it does seem to be statistically wrong. It said he was a math major...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK
You kick it to go up 8. I assume the win % of teams up 8 late in the 4th quarter is very high. Probably nearly identical to teams up 9.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greenway12
It could also go badly if the other team goes down and scores a touchdown, and then you lose in OT, or they go for 2 and beat you.

Kicking the extra point means worst case scenario, you go OT, and there is less than a 50% they get two after scoring a TD anyway.


It's not the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it does seem to be statistically wrong. It said he was a math major...
Some of this I'd already covered, but all of it is correct. Think of it this way: If there's less than 50% chance you're going to convert a 2 pt. attempt (per your post), and you could take an extra point at 95% probability and take your chances in OT, what do you do? Most likely, you take the point and take your chances in OT.

This is also why you go for 2 when up 7, because not only is it unlikely a failure results in a loss in regulation, but it's also unlikely the opposing coach will even try to beat you in regulation should the opportunity arise. If they do, you still have a good chance at stopping them, and that chance is no worse than the chances in OT.
 
The most confusing part about there two point attempt to me was deciding to throw it instead of have leidner keep the ball honestly.

I get the logic in going for two even if I wouldn't do so.
 
So, lets look at this a slightly different way.
If you are up by a touchdown and they other team scores in under 2 minutes, you are not a great defense. Do you trust your defense or offense more for 1 play if you want to win the game? The percentages of 39% are for all teams which don't account for how good or bad Minnesota is. In years past, I would say MN's offense was better than their defense. If the percentages were 50/50, I'd rather play to win the game than hope to not go to OT.
 
To follow up on my post, you need to ask yourself, would you rather have to convert a 2 point conversion, or would you rather defend the other team having to convert on a 2 point conversion. I'd go with the latter.

Yes, and it is statistically wrong to do what Claeys did. We had the math in a thread last Friday.

Now that we know the FBS percentage of conversion is 39% on a 2-pt attempt, the math looks even more convincing against Claeys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeinOmaha
Loosely, here's the math:

If you are up 7, you have a 39% chance of being up 9 which likely puts the game away. You also have a 61% chance of only being up 7 and risking OT or (rarely) a loss in regulation. Or you have about a 98% chance of being up 8, in which case:

If you are up 8, the other team has to score a TD in 1:27 and convert on a 2-pt try. Let's go ahead and "give" them the TD in this math, which is wrong, but why not? Now you have a 61% chance of winning or a 39% chance of OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob Sanders Biceps
I've always thought the better question was scoring a last minute touchdown when you're down 7. Kick to tie or go for 2 to win?
 
You think a team up 8 has the same winning % late in the fourth quarter that a team up 9 does?
The actual results of teams being up 8 versus being up 9. Not statistical probabilities. I bet the actual results of teams being up 8 versus 9 is statistically insignificant.
 
Reward > Risk. Seems reasonable to me.

The only way this could go badly is if a) you miss the 2 pt. convo, b) your opponent scores a TD, c) decides to go for 2 and risk losing if they miss, and d) they convert the 2 pt conversion and e) you fail to get a FG in response.

Otherwise if A and B happen, and they kick, you're going to overtime.

A lot has to go wrong for you to lose in regulation, whereas if you make it, you're up 2 possessions. It's worth it.

i see the logic but wouldn't it make more sense to kick the extra point so that you are up 8 and then your opponent has to score the touchdown AND make the 2 pt conversion, to force the tie?
 
The actual results of teams being up 8 versus being up 9. Not statistical probabilities. I bet the actual results of teams being up 8 versus 9 is statistically insignificant.
I still don't understand what you are saying. You're saying that late in a game it doesn't matter much if you are up 8 or 9? Statistically.
 
I think it is just matter of risk taking. Math says kick the extra point, but you go for two and end it.

Chances are you win no matter what, so it's not a massive risk.
 
Loosely, here's the math:

If you are up 7, you have a 39% chance of being up 9 which likely puts the game away. You also have a 61% chance of only being up 7 and risking OT or (rarely) a loss in regulation. Or you have about a 98% chance of being up 8, in which case:

If you are up 8, the other team has to score a TD in 1:27 and convert on a 2-pt try. Let's go ahead and "give" them the TD in this math, which is wrong, but why not? Now you have a 61% chance of winning or a 39% chance of OT.

I actually ran the math myself and found as best I can tell it really doesn't matter what you do.

In your 2nd scenario if you are up 8, don't "give them the TD" because that makes it look like you lose more. They probably have a 15-25% chance (at best) of scoring a TD to tie.

So if up 7 you can go for 2.
If you go for 2, 39% of the time you win (up 9) and 61% of the time you are up 7 and other team gets the ball. Assume of those 61% of the time they score a TD 15-25% of the time and then makes odds on whether they kick XP for OT or try for 2 to win and you will find you still win the game roughly 95% of the time that you went for 2.

Not surprisingly if you kick the XP to go up 8, you only lose the 15-25% of times that they score a TD multiplied by 39% chance of making the 2 point conversion multiplied by 50% chance of losing in OT. In other words, about 95% of the time.


There is no good mathematical argument that I can tell that shows what Claeys did is either wrong at all, or at worst close enough to not worry about. The reason why is that the odds of the other team scoring a TD on a drive in less than 90 seconds are relatively so remote. You win almost every time with either decision. And all of this math ignores that the possible tying/leading TD by the other team leaves you no time yourself on the clock in regulation to try to score again so both methods likely underestimate odds of winning.
 
i see the logic but wouldn't it make more sense to kick the extra point so that you are up 8 and then your opponent has to score the touchdown AND make the 2 pt conversion, to force the tie?
I had never considered this scenario before today, and would have said "yes" off the top of my head. Now that I've taken the time to go through scenarios though and consider possible outcomes, I'd say no, that you should definitely go for two if up 7 late. Your chances of stopping a 2 pt. conversion are better than stopping an extra point, but if you convert, you don't care. I just think the reward is greater than the risk.
 
I'd think you take the 8 point lead most times!
Why put the less than 50% odds on you, when you can put them on the other team?

I can see why you would if you're in a high scoring game against a great offense and avg defense.
But always...that just seems stupid!
So 4th quarter in a defensive battle up 9-2 or 10-3 you're gonna go for 2? Your offense has one touchdown and maybe only 1 score and you're going for 2? LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWIowahawks
I had never considered this scenario before today, and would have said "yes" off the top of my head. Now that I've taken the time to go through scenarios though and consider possible outcomes, I'd say no, that you should definitely go for two if up 7 late. Your chances of stopping a 2 pt. conversion are better than stopping an extra point, but if you convert, you don't care. I just think the reward is greater than the risk.
Shouldn't this depend on your offense/defense and your opponents?
I actually ran the math myself and found as best I can tell it really doesn't matter what you do.

In your 2nd scenario if you are up 8, don't "give them the TD" because that makes it look like you lose more. They probably have a 15-25% chance (at best) of scoring a TD to tie.

So if up 7 you can go for 2.
If you go for 2, 39% of the time you win (up 9) and 61% of the time you are up 7 and other team gets the ball. Assume of those 61% of the time they score a TD 15-25% of the time and then makes odds on whether they kick XP for OT or try for 2 to win and you will find you still win the game roughly 95% of the time that you went for 2.

Not surprisingly if you kick the XP to go up 8, you only lose the 15-25% of times that they score a TD multiplied by 39% chance of making the 2 point conversion multiplied by 50% chance of losing in OT. In other words, about 95% of the time.


There is no good mathematical argument that I can tell that shows what Claeys did is either wrong at all, or at worst close enough to not worry about. The reason why is that the odds of the other team scoring a TD on a drive in less than 90 seconds are relatively so remote. You win almost every time with either decision. And all of this math ignores that the possible tying/leading TD by the other team leaves you no time yourself on the clock in regulation to try to score again so both methods likely underestimate odds of winning.
Problem is you're pulling random numbers...Those numbers are going to change with each team "going for 2" and each team they are playing.
Because of the variables, ALWAYS, going for 2 seems pretty foolish to me....
You play your opponent.... not a "hypothetical number".

This is coming from a guy who has never coached even pee wee football though :)
 
I'd rather take the 95% probability and put the burden of the 39% probability on the other team.
 
I'd rather take the 95% probability and put the burden of the 39% probability on the other team.

you win 95% of the time with either choice you make. If you go for 2, it's just that 39% of the time the game is essentially over right away with you winning. The other 56% of the time that you win you just have to wait longer. If you kick the XP you still win 95% of the time, you just always wait longer.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't this depend on your offense/defense and your opponents?

Problem is you're pulling random numbers...Those numbers are going to change with each team "going for 2" and each team they are playing.
Because of the variables, ALWAYS, going for 2 seems pretty foolish to me....
You play your opponent.... not a "hypothetical number".

This is coming from a guy who has never coached even pee wee football though :)
Certainly, if you have no confidence in your offense to get 3 yards, you shouldn't do it. Under normal circumstances, it would make sense. It will never be absolute.
 
Problem is you're pulling random numbers...Those numbers are going to change with each team "going for 2" and each team they are playing.
Because of the variables, ALWAYS, going for 2 seems pretty foolish to me....
You play your opponent.... not a "hypothetical number".

This is coming from a guy who has never coached even pee wee football though :)

You are correct that the numbers will vary a bit from opponent to opponent. The thing is, they won't vary that much. It's not like your chance of 2 point success against one team is going to be 70% and 20% against another. It's also not like one opponent will score a TD 70% of the time against you in less than 90 seconds and another will do so only 10% of the time.

The answer is that in most scenarios you can dream up it really doesn't matter whether you go for 2 or not. Your overall odds of winning the game are pretty close to the same with either choice. It's possible to dream up a way in which it would matter significantly, but most of the time it won't.


There are also football win expectancy calculators you can mess around with to get a feel for win probabilities in various situations. Pro Football Reference's version tells me if you are down by 7 with 90 seconds to go and the ball on your own 30 yard line, you win the game only 5.73% of the time. So that's even the scenario when you went for 2 and didn't get it and allowing a little extra time for the opponent. Being down 8 (assuming the made XP) means you win 2.55% of the time.
 
Last edited:
I still don't understand what you are saying. You're saying that late in a game it doesn't matter much if you are up 8 or 9? Statistically.
That is exactly what I am saying. From actual game results, not probabilities. I'm guessing on the statistics part but I feel very confident about it.
 
Whether you are up 8 or 9, the odds say it's a two possession game. If you convert the 2 at the national average, it's a smart move to make the attempt.
 
It's late in the game. Let's say less than 3-2 minutes. I absolutely agree with the call in going for two if you're up by 7. You're essentially trying to win the game right there by putting it pretty much out of reach barring a miracle.
 
That is exactly what I am saying. From actual game results, not probabilities. I'm guessing on the statistics part but I feel very confident about it.

I don't agree. Late in the game the opponent is only likely to get 1 possession after you convert or don't convert. This is the scenario Caleys is talking about. 8 points is still a 1 possession game. 9 is a two possession game.
 
Whether you are up 8 or 9, the odds say it's a two possession game. If you convert the 2 at the national average, it's a smart move to make the attempt.

Being up 8 is not a two possession game, odds or not. Statistics don't change the definition.

I agree you go for two every time in that scenario though.
 
It's late in the game. Let's say less than 3-2 minutes. I absolutely agree with the call in going for two if you're up by 7. You're essentially trying to win the game right there by putting it pretty much out of reach barring a miracle.
That's shortsighted thinking, akin to people wanting their tax returns immediately but paying a fee to do so, rather than wait two weeks for it. What matters is the score when the clock reaches 0:00, not when it reaches 1:32.

Yes, you could ice the game if you convert the 2, but that is statistically unlikely. Instead, what you are doing is giving the other team a great opportunity to tie the game, in your desire to just end the game early.

The wiser decision is to kick the extra point and defend the 2 point conversion after the other team scores, when the odds are in your favor.

Again, I'm assuming the other team will score a TD, otherwise this whole discussion is moot.
 
I'll give another sports analogy. You're up 3 games to 2 in the World Series. You can start your ace on short rest for Game 6, or have him fresh for Game 7. So many want to start him in Game 6 just to end the series. But you don't get a bigger trophy for winning in 6, it's just the desire to get that trophy sooner. If the goal is to win the World Series, you place your pitchers in the best position to win 1 of those 2 games.

If pitcher A gives you a 60% chance to win today, and an 80% chance to win tomorrow, and your pitcher B gives you a 40% chance today or tomorrow, start pitcher B today and save your ace for tomorrow, when he's more effective. Remember, you only need to win one of those games.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT