Should Weber have gone for 2?

[TypicalTribe]

I saw it mentioned briefly in the game thread, but I thought it was completely overlooked that Weber blew a golden chance to really put pressure on JMU after scoring the touchdown to go up 27-20 with just over three minutes left. I know that the standard play is to kick the extra point and go up 8 thereby forcing the other team to go for 2 to tie. However, in a road playoff game against that offense in that environment, I think the call was for Weber to go for 2 with the chance to take a two score lead. I think JMU was on the heels after the surprising play for the touchdown, so why not try to make one more play?

[DirtyDukes]

I said the same thing live. No reason not to and it's a win win.

[Professor Chaos]

No, I don't agree with that. If Weber was able to run the ball better on JMU (only had 91 yards on 32 attempts for the game) it might've made more sense but it's tough to score from the 3 when you can't run the ball effectively.

Taking the sure point and making JMU have to get the TD plus the 2 point does kind of make it a 2 score game in that JMU has to put the ball in the endzone twice to tie... they just didn't have to give it up for a possession in between scores if that makes sense.

In retrospect you can say it would've made sense but had Weber stopped Trae Sharp on that 2 point conversion attempt, which they very nearly did if not for a very slippery cut by Sharp, kicking the XP to put them up 8 would've potentially been the difference between a 2 point win and OT.

[FUBeAR]

No, I don't agree with that. If Weber was able to run the ball better on JMU (only had 91 yards on 32 attempts for the game) it might've made more sense but it's tough to score from the 3 when you can't run the ball effectively.

Taking the sure point and making JMU have to get the TD plus the 2 point does kind of make it a 2 score game in that JMU has to put the ball in the endzone twice to tie... they just didn't have to give it up for a possession in between scores if that makes sense.

In retrospect you can say it would've made sense but had Weber stopped Trae Sharp on that 2 point conversion attempt, which they very nearly did if not for a very slippery cut by Sharp, kicking the XP to put them up 8 would've potentially been the difference between a 2 point win and OT. JMU was Offside on the XP kick. Take the penalty & your looking at 54” to 2 points with a 230 lb QB. I woulda kicked from 3 yds & gone for 2 from the 1-1/2 yard line.

[Professor Chaos]

JMU was Offside on the XP kick. Take the penalty & your looking at 54” to 2 points with a 230 lb QB. I woulda kicked from 3 yds & gone for 2 from the 1-1/2 yard line.
Were they? That is interesting. I'd wouldn't blame them for trying for the 2 pointer from the 1.5 yard line then in that case. Still not completely convinced it would be the right call but it would make sense.

[uofmman1122]

Would it have changed anything? Maybe not?

JMU still stopped them after they scored. Even if Weber got the 2 points, if things played out the same (not saying they necessarily would have, but Weber failed to move the ball after the JMU TD), JMU still would have won with the field goal, just by one or two points, instead of 3.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[PurpleStreamers]

No, I don't agree with that. If Weber was able to run the ball better on JMU (only had 91 yards on 32 attempts for the game) it might've made more sense but it's tough to score from the 3 when you can't run the ball effectively.

Taking the sure point and making JMU have to get the TD plus the 2 point does kind of make it a 2 score game in that JMU has to put the ball in the endzone twice to tie... they just didn't have to give it up for a possession in between scores if that makes sense.

In retrospect you can say it would've made sense but had Weber stopped Trae Sharp on that 2 point conversion attempt, which they very nearly did if not for a very slippery cut by Sharp, kicking the XP to put them up 8 would've potentially been the difference between a 2 point win and OT.

Dirty - you know you're my boy and all but I'm with Professor here. We debated this in the stands live too, especially after the penalty. I think if you look at the advanced metrics, the "right" play is definitely get up 8 and force them to score "twice" but I'm not completely sure bc I know there are lots of "always go for 2" angles too. In other words force them to have a second scoring play into the end zone which has a much lower likelihood of success than an XP. You also don't want to risk being up 7 and having JMU score with 10 seconds to go and then go for it and lose. Basically, they had to think their chance of losing in regulation was almost zero once they got up 8 at that point and they sure seemed correct to me at the time. It's the fact JMU scored in one minute and didn't even have to use all their timeouts that changed things so much. Definitely a tough call.

[Professor Chaos]

Would it have changed anything? Maybe not?

JMU still stopped them after they scored. Even if Weber got the 2 points, if things played out the same (not saying they necessarily would have, but Weber failed to move the ball after the JMU TD), JMU still would have won with the field goal, just by one or two points, instead of 3.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
JMU only had 1 timeout left after that 2 point conversion attempt that they converted to tie the game with 2:08 left. Had they not gotten it or had Weber still been ahead if they went for it and got 2 on their last TD JMU almost would've had to onside kick there. If Weber had recovered it they could've ran the clock down to under 30 seconds even without getting a first down.

I think Weber's bigger mistake was over-aggressiveness in their playcalling on their last possession. I said it in the game thread that they had to be careful with 2:08 left because if they try to throw-throw-throw and go 3 and out they're going to have to give JMU the ball back with a good chunk of time left and JMU's offense was humming at that point. Weber tried to go deep on 1st down and that allowed the clock to stop (as it did on their 3rd down incompletion). I think it would've been the smarter play on 1st down to run the ball or call a safe pass to try to get a good gain on 1st down and if you can't get it just play for OT.

[mcveyrl]

Were they? That is interesting. I'd wouldn't blame them for trying for the 2 pointer from the 1.5 yard line then in that case. Still not completely convinced it would be the right call but it would make sense.

We definitely were offside. It was our second one on an XP.

It's an interesting question. Before thinking about it, I would have said don't go for two. But, from a risk/reward standpoint, if you don't get it, your worst case scenario is the same - JMU goes down the field for the tie (granted they have to get a 2pt conversion in one scenario). But if you get it, then you probably force JMU to take an onside kick even if they do score. So would you rather force a two point conversion attempt or an onside kick? I think I'd rather make them try and get an onside kick. I would go for two.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Absolutely not.

[OhioHen]

I think they should have.

An 8 point lead is a LITTLE better than a 7 point lead.

A 9 point lead is MUCH better than a 7 or 8 point lead

[BNATION]

Yes, your playing the #1 team in the nation at their house. Go for two. That puts alot more pressure on JMU as well.

[potus#4]

I think they should have.

An 8 point lead is a LITTLE better than a 7 point lead.

A 9 point lead is MUCH better than a 7 or 8 point lead

I would say an 8 pt lead is significantly better than a 7 pt lead when you consider the odds of making a 2 pt conversion are probably only around 50%. At the time I was thinking maybe they should go for 2, but after thinking about it some more I think I've changed my mind. And what are the odds of a successful 1 vs a successful 2? JMU was stuffing the Weber run game pretty good and the QB wasn't particularly accurate on short throws.

[jmufan999]

going for two would have been incredibly stupid.... if they didn't make it. way too much risk, way too much time left.

now, what Maine did in 2011? going for two on the last play of the game? totally different. that was ballsy and it paid off for them. this would have just been stupid. he would have looked like a hero if it worked, but you take the 8 points without hesitating.

[th0m]

going for two would have been incredibly stupid.... if they didn't make it. way too much risk, way too much time left.

now, what Maine did in 2011? going for two on the last play of the game? totally different. that was ballsy and it paid off for them. this would have just been stupid. he would have looked like a hero if it worked, but you take the 8 points without hesitating.

But if they didnt make it theyre still a TD plus pat down. No way Houston would have gone for two then for the win instead of the pat for a tie game. But i agree that Weber was not really getting it done on the ground, and trying to pass it for the conversion would have been very risky as well. Most of cantwells passes were long balls, not against a compressed field in an endzone situation.

[katss07]

I would have pulled out that option they used once or twice with Cantwell. I said it live, they should have went for it. Would have basically put the game away. But even if they would have went for it then converted, JMU would still have won.

[Professor Chaos]

I would have pulled out that option they used once or twice with Cantwell. I said it live, they should have went for it. Would have basically put the game away. But even if they would have went for it then converted, JMU would still have won.
No they wouldn't have. I said it earlier in the thread but Weber throwing two incompletions on their last offensive series of the game (which was a 3 and out) is what allowed JMU to win. If Weber would've had a lead when they took possession with 2:08 left and JMU having only 1 timeout left they could've ran it under 30 seconds before punting. The way it worked out they were punting with 1:18 left and didn't even need a force JMU to use their last timeout. JMU obviously needed every bit of those 78 seconds to get into position for that game winning FG.

[katss07]

No they wouldn't have. I said it earlier in the thread but Weber throwing two incompletions on their last offensive series of the game (which was a 3 and out) is what allowed JMU to win. If Weber would've had a lead when they took possession with 2:08 left and JMU having only 1 timeout left they could've ran it under 30 seconds before punting. They it worked out they were punting with 1:18 left and didn't even need a force JMU to use their last timeout. JMU obviously needed every bit of those 78 seconds to get into position for that game winning FG.
Whoops, didn’t read that. I guess going for they could have sealed it with a 2 point conv.

[clenz]

Yes.

You'd be blown away at what research shows for the odds of winning of teams that are aggressive and go for it on 4th down and go for 2 more often. The math simply doesn't make since to kick PATs, punt and FG is many situations.

There are those who never kick PAT, punt or kick FGs. There are also those that onside every single time. Those tend to be at the HS level where the talent level makes that a thing. However, it's incredible at the college level how many coaches ignore the ever growing amount of research and math that suggest the conservative approach isn't necessarily the right approach.

In this case you're already up a touchdown and a PAT, on the road vs the #1 team in the nation that is riding like a 25 game win streak. They sure as hell aren't going for 2 if they don't have too. If they do march down the field and score, needing to go for two, momentum (and math) suggests they'll be successful more than they aren't. Go for 2. Go for the win. Set the attitude you aren't ****ing around.

Kicking the PAT there is playing not to lose. Playing not to lose is the surest way to lose.

To use studies done on other sports - basketball players tend to shoot above their FT % late in games with the score tied, but lower if their team is up 1 or down 1. In sudden death PK situations in soccer professionals convert 92% of them time when the kick was for the win and just 62% of the time if his team needed the make to tie the shoot out.


To bring it to football and lay the math out - based on the coach in Arkansas that does it

Each yard line has an expected point value. Each down-and-distance has an expected rate of success. Punting average is easily calculated, as is punt return average. Years of football data have created these numbers, and while they differ between high school, college and the NFL, they do not differ as much as you might think. It’s fairly easy to use these numbers to create a do-I-go-for-it-on-fourth-down formula similar to the do-I-hit probability combinations in blackjack. Two years ago, Paul Dalen wrote an excellent piece (http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/11/15/5105958/fourth-down-pulaski-academy-kevin-kelley) at SB Nation’s Football Study Hall explaining the math behind Pulaski Academy’s madness. Here’s a snippet in which Dalen explains why a team should go for a particular fourth down from the 50-yard line.

In the example above, the fourth-down spot is the 50-yard line. The expected P(conv) is .50, the team’s average punt (chosen for example purposes) is 40 yards and the opponent’s average return is 10 yards. In this scenario, the expected point value of going for it is 0.0 points, and the expected opponent point value of punting is minus-1.8 points. Zero is more than minus-1.8, so going for it is justified.For most of us, decades spent watching football played a certain way has taught us that the only prudent choice is to punt and play defense. But the math indicates that punting is actually the riskier choice.
So, why are college coaches—especially the ones whose teams are likely to lose most of their Power Five-versus-Power Five games anyway—so reluctant to try something the math suggests could work? Another byproduct of watching the Bruins play is that it becomes impossible to keep from yelling at the television when a team punts on fourth-and-two from its 45-yard line. For example, in Purdue’s 41–31 loss at Marshall on Sunday, the Boilermakers punted on fourth-and-five from the 50-yard line in the waning seconds of the first half. The Thundering Herd would have had precious little time to get in position for a field goal, but Purdue—which had just completed an 11-yard pass on third down—might have gained 15 or 20 yards and set up a field goal attempt of its own. The math favored the engineering school, but the Boilermakers punted anyway. After seeing Pulaski Academy play in person, I imagine this sort of thing will drive me crazy from this point forward.

Kelley also occasionally finds himself angry at the television, even though he has tried repeatedly to tell himself to stop watching like a math-obsessed coach. “I try to watch the game as a fan and not a coach, but even then it does drive me crazy,” Kelley says. “Especially when it’s a fourth-and-one or fourth-and-two, I know 100% of the time they ought to go for it. But who am I to question those guys? They have a plan, and they’re going to stick with it. I have a plan.”

...

https://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/09/why-college-football-coach-should-adopt-no-punt-always-onside-kick-philosophy



I'm not as far as he is with the never punt, kick PAT and always onside. It's tough to ignore his math. It's tough to ignore than going for 2 - even if unsuccessful - instills a mentality into the players that "This is our game. We own this". Kicking a PAT there tells your players you don't want to lose. It doesn't tell them you want to win.

I live in Iowa. We have two of the running jokes, nationally, for being as conservative as it gets with Mark Farley and Kirk Ferentz. UNI has had Corey Lewis and David Johnson in the last decade. Both averaged over 5 yards per carry for their career. Never were they given a 2 point conversion attempt. Why? Johnson was 6'2 230 lbs running behind and OL that averaged 303 with a QB that was 6'4 220. Why were more 2 point conversions not gone for? Why so many punts/FGs on 4th and 3 or less? Same thing on defense. "Farley gonna Farley" is in reference to going to prevent defense late in games with a small lead. There's a reason UNI's win % in games decided by 8 or less is something like 43% over the last decade. He plays not to lose. He doesn't play to win. Kirk Ferentz has literally had his team punt from the opposition 30 yard line on 4th and less than 5. Nothing about that math makes sense.

In a game where the Hawkeyes were down 14-6 with 5 minutes left in the game Kirk had his team try a FG from the 20 yard line on 4th and 3. Why? I swear to god his answer was "You have to score twice. It gets down to that. Somehow, some way you’re going to have to score twice.". No that's not a joke. That's a real damn quote. Oh...Iowa missed the FG. The difference in starting field position for Wisconsin between the missed FG and failing to convert? 0 yards. They started at the 20 anyway.


I hate to use this...but..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5-iJUuPWis


He's right. The only thing playing not to lose and play prevent does is cause to you lose and prevent you from winning.

[mcveyrl]

No they wouldn't have. I said it earlier in the thread but Weber throwing two incompletions on their last offensive series of the game (which was a 3 and out) is what allowed JMU to win. If Weber would've had a lead when they took possession with 2:08 left and JMU having only 1 timeout left they could've ran it under 30 seconds before punting. The way it worked out they were punting with 1:18 left and didn't even need a force JMU to use their last timeout. JMU obviously needed every bit of those 78 seconds to get into position for that game winning FG.

Well, JMU would've had two timeouts because one was burned setting up for the 2 pt conversion.

Question for everybody: if Weber gets the 2 and goes up by 9, and then JMU drives and scores with 2:08 left. Does JMU kick it away and rely on the defense to hold or do they go for the onside kick? I guess I assumed onside kick, but maybe not. I might be back to not going for 2...

The other thing, and I know this is hindsight analysis, is that the result of the game doesn't change if you go for 2 and don't get it, but if you go for 2 and get it, I think WSU wins.

[clenz]

Well, JMU would've had two timeouts because one was burned setting up for the 2 pt conversion.

Question for everybody: if Weber gets the 2 and goes up by 9, and then JMU drives and scores with 2:08 left. Does JMU kick it away and rely on the defense to hold or do they go for the onside kick? I guess I assumed onside kick, but maybe not. I might be back to not going for 2...

The other thing, and I know this is hindsight analysis, is that the result of the game doesn't change if you go for 2 and don't get it, but if you go for 2 and get it, I think WSU wins.
Onside.

If you trust your defense to hold them at, say, the WSU 30 you trust them to hold at the JMU 45.

Weber has a real good punter. If he punts from...say the 35...the ball is fair caught and JMU takes over at the the 25 based on his average punt. WSU holds at the 40 and WSU punts from there. Yeah, he's real good but the overall odds state it's going to be a touchback and you're taking over at the 20. Or he is going to check it way to to avoid a touch-back and you're taking over at the 15ish.

That's a only a 10 yard swing while giving up on the idea of recovering an onside kick.

Again, that math is bad math.

[cx500d]

A better play would have been to stop JMU from marching down the field....

[mcveyrl]

Onside.

If you trust your defense to hold them at, say, the WSU 30 you trust them to hold at the JMU 45.

Weber has a real good punter. If he punts from...say the 35...the ball is fair caught and JMU takes over at the the 25 based on his average punt. WSU holds at the 40 and WSU punts from there. Yeah, he's real good but the overall odds state it's going to be a touchback and you're taking over at the 20. Or he is going to check it way to to avoid a touch-back and you're taking over at the 15ish.

That's a only a 10 yard swing while giving up on the idea of recovering an onside kick.

Again, that math is bad math.

I think so too, which is why I go for two (like you detailed above). There's a lower percentage that they get an onside kick than that they get a two point conversion.

[Bison56]

A better play would have been to stop JMU from marching down the field....

^this

[Professor Chaos]

Well, JMU would've had two timeouts because one was burned setting up for the 2 pt conversion.

Question for everybody: if Weber gets the 2 and goes up by 9, and then JMU drives and scores with 2:08 left. Does JMU kick it away and rely on the defense to hold or do they go for the onside kick? I guess I assumed onside kick, but maybe not. I might be back to not going for 2...

The other thing, and I know this is hindsight analysis, is that the result of the game doesn't change if you go for 2 and don't get it, but if you go for 2 and get it, I think WSU wins.
Good point. So had Weber gone for 2 and got it they would've been up two after JMU scored (and kicked the XP) but JMU would've had 2 TOs meaning that Weber probably would've only been able to run it down to 1:15 or so if they didn't get a first down on the ensuing drive (but they would've forced JMU to burn their TOs).

It is an interesting argument. It really boils down to how confident Weber was they could convert the 2 pointer. All you have to do is convert more than 50% of the time for it to be a good decision statistically. I think if more teams would practice 2 point conversion situations they'd be better at it also but coaches have a hard enough time working everything into their practices that way it is already I'm sure.

EDIT: Oh, and in regards to your question I agree with clenz that you try the onsides. Even if there's a less than 50% chance you get it Weber is only one first down away from sealing it so whether they get that first down at their own 35 (if you kick it deep) or at the JMU 35 (if you kick onsides and don't recover it) JMU is hosed and Weber is punting if they don't get it in either scenario.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In the pros. converting a 2-point conversion is just about 50%, and it stands to reason in college the conversion rate is lower. If Weber goes for 2 and misses, all JMU needs to do to tie is run out the rest of the clock on one slow drive, then kick a 90%+ PAT chance to tie. However if Weber simply kicks the PAT, JMU then needs to perform a potentially error-prone two minute drill (because they need time to get the ball back) and at absolute best a coin flip on the 2-point conversion. More importantly it tells your defense that you can rely on them to win the game. The chance of JMU going the length of the field and making the 2 point conversion were remote enough - and even if they do make it, you get the ball back! You take that chance every time.

[mvemjsunpx]

Probability exercise. Let's go with these estimated assumptions:

100% - Making PAT (both teams) (it's not a literal automatic, but it's close and the math is a lot easier this way)
100% - Weber wins if they get the 2PC (this may be reaching, but let's go with it just to see how the numbers play out)
40% - Chance of getting the 2PC (both teams)
33% - Chance JMU drives the field to score a TD after Weber's PAT/2PC try


% chance JMU (at least) ties the game on the next possession

Weber kicks the PAT to go up 8: 33% x 40% = 13.2%
Weber goes for 2: 0% x 40% + 33% x 60% = 19.8%


So, basically, the only way going for 2 would be mathematically justified is if JMU's chances of driving the field and Weber's 2PC chances are both 50+% (or they both average out to that). Those kind of odds just aren't going to be true for the vast majority of games. I could see going for 2 in a shootout (i.e., Memphis/UCF), but not otherwise.

[FUBeAR]

Probability exercise. Let's go with these estimated assumptions:

100% - Making PAT (both teams) (it's not a literal automatic, but it's close and the math is a lot easier this way)
100% - Weber wins if they get the 2PC (this may be reaching, but let's go with it just to see how the numbers play out)
40% - Chance of getting the 2PC (both teams)
33% - Chance JMU drives the field to score a TD after Weber's PAT/2PC try


% chance JMU (at least) ties the game on the next possession

Weber kicks the PAT to go up 8: 33% x 40% = 13.2%
Weber goes for 2: 0% x 40% + 33% x 60% = 19.8%


So, basically, the only way going for 2 would be mathematically justified is if JMU's chances of driving the field and Weber's 2PC chances are both 50+% (or they both average out to that). Those kind of odds just aren't going to be true for the vast majority of games. I could see going for 2 in a shootout (i.e., Memphis/UCF), but not otherwise.

Hard to see that a 2 pt conversion from 1.5 yards has the same probability as a 2 pt conversion from 3 yards. Remember, Weber had the option of taking the 1 point off the board and going for 2 from half the distance (1.5 yards). If my OL can't do what it takes to get us 1.5 yards to all but 'seal the deal,' most likely defeat the #1 Team in whole US or A, and advance to potentially win the National Championship, then we don't deserve those things. That's just the way I feel about it and my OL, Offense, and Team would know that's the way I feel about it...and they would feel the EXACT same way. If I decided to not try it from the 1.5 yard line and we lost the game (due to that - I know this particular game had a few more late wrinkles), I (and they, rightly so) would feel as if I had cheated them out of the opportunity to win the game. I line up and do something like this with my 230 lb QB who likes to run the dang ball...

https://twitter.com/SpreadOffense/status/885491518752133120

[th0m]

@Fubear, interestingly, that was pretty much how Cantwell walked one of the TD's in, I think the score to go up 21-20. Edit: well not with the leading blocker, but just stuffing it and making it.

[mvemjsunpx]

Hard to see that a 2 pt conversion from 1.5 yards has the same probability as a 2 pt conversion from 3 yards. Remember, Weber had the option of taking the 1 point off the board and going for 2 from half the distance (1.5 yards). If my OL can't do what it takes to get us 1.5 yards to all but 'seal the deal,' most likely defeat the #1 Team in whole US or A, and advance to potentially win the National Championship, then we don't deserve those things. That's just the way I feel about it and my OL, Offense, and Team would know that's the way I feel about it...and they would feel the EXACT same way. If I decided to not try it from the 1.5 yard line and we lost the game (due to that - I know this particular game had a few more late wrinkles), I (and they, rightly so) would feel as if I had cheated them out of the opportunity to win the game. I line up and do something like this with my 230 lb QB who likes to run the dang ball...


Your argument is basically that the coach should tell his team that the entire game is going to come down to whether they get a 2PC to go up 9 instead of 8. In other words: you risk demoralizing your team for no reason if they don't get it ("we don't deserve those things"), even though you have an 8-point lead with ≈4:00 left. If I was a player on that team, I would just be confused.

Multiple people in this thread have argued that going for 2 will impress the players because it's aggressive & stuff. To me, that move reeks of desperation.

[FUBeAR]

Your argument is basically that the coach should tell his team that the entire game is going to come down to whether they get a 2PC to go up 9 instead of 8. In other words: you risk demoralizing your team for no reason if they don't get it ("we don't deserve those things"), even though you have an 8-point lead with ≈4:00 left. If I was a player on that team, I would just be confused.

Multiple people in this thread have argued that going for 2 will impress the players because it's aggressive & stuff. To me, that move reeks of desperation.

Not going to speculate of your Playing/Coaching experience, but I would bet that you didn't play for the guys I played for and Coached with. My Head Coach was later the DI-A (FBS) Coach of the Year and my O-Line Coach is now the O-Line Coach at the defending NCAA FBS National Champions. This philosophy/decision is the way they taught me to Coach/Play Football. Nothing confusing about it at all to me and my Teammates. So, I'll stick with that.

[ElCid]

A better play would have been to stop JMU from marching down the field....

Winner!

[lionsrking2]

I saw it mentioned briefly in the game thread, but I thought it was completely overlooked that Weber blew a golden chance to really put pressure on JMU after scoring the touchdown to go up 27-20 with just over three minutes left. I know that the standard play is to kick the extra point and go up 8 thereby forcing the other team to go for 2 to tie. However, in a road playoff game against that offense in that environment, I think the call was for Weber to go for 2 with the chance to take a two score lead. I think JMU was on the heels after the surprising play for the touchdown, so why not try to make one more play?

Just saw this thread and haven't read most of the posts but I would almost always go for two late in a game if chance to go up by nine, especially being an underdog on the road. Going for two gives your team a point blank chance to ice the game, yet still leaves you with high percentage chance of at least going to OT should you not make it. There's always a chance your opponent could attempt a two-point conversion for the win should you not make it, but that's a chance I'd be willing to take if I've got a chance to go up two scores. Kicking the extra point is playing "not to lose," which is fine if you're a heavy favorite at home, and you feel confident you shut your opponent down in the final minutes or win in OT. But if I was in Weber's shoes, I'm 100% going for two in that scenario. Not even a question in my mind.

[lionsrking2]

Probability exercise. Let's go with these estimated assumptions:

100% - Making PAT (both teams) (it's not a literal automatic, but it's close and the math is a lot easier this way)
100% - Weber wins if they get the 2PC (this may be reaching, but let's go with it just to see how the numbers play out)
40% - Chance of getting the 2PC (both teams)
33% - Chance JMU drives the field to score a TD after Weber's PAT/2PC try


% chance JMU (at least) ties the game on the next possession

Weber kicks the PAT to go up 8: 33% x 40% = 13.2%
Weber goes for 2: 0% x 40% + 33% x 60% = 19.8%


So, basically, the only way going for 2 would be mathematically justified is if JMU's chances of driving the field and Weber's 2PC chances are both 50+% (or they both average out to that). Those kind of odds just aren't going to be true for the vast majority of games. I could see going for 2 in a shootout (i.e., Memphis/UCF), but not otherwise.

Except it's not that simple. If I've got the ball at the three yard line with a chance to essentially win the game (with a two-point conversion), yet still have protection of possible OT, I'm taking that chance, especially being an underdog on the road. One can argue Weber's real time chances of converting a two-point attempt, but assuming it was "40 percent," they still had a very reasonable chance to ice the game, but passed. There's no right or wrong answer, it comes down to how aggressive you are, do you play to win, or play not to lose.

[clenz]

The 2 point conversion % is also greatly flawed when looked at as just a gross %.

Teams are so scared to go for 2 that they don't practice it more than 4 or 5 minutes a week - if that. It's flawed by teams running out of their ass for it.

Teams that commit to it do it better. Coaches that commit to going for 2 more have significantly higher conversion rates.

Oregon converted at 61% over 9 seasons with Kelly and Helfrich - and that includes failing on 4 in one game in 2016 against Nebraska. Outside of that game they converted on 58% of them in 2016.

Even Oregon didn't go for 2 a ton, but it was significantly more than anyone else. 44 times between 09-16.

If teams would commit to it, practice it, make it their mentality, they would convert significantly higher than 50% of the time. The same is true for 4th and 3 or less.

As I laid out - and posted the article - the math simply doesn't make sense to punt and kick PATs/FG as much as coaches do. It's not done because of percentages, though that's an easy cop out for a coach to use. They do it because they are scared. They are scared of a fan base not understanding that even going 50% is the same as 100% on PATs, which doesn't happen. Stats show that teams that commit to going for 2 at a higher rate average 1.0-1.2 points per conversion attempt. The teams that kick PATs average between .87-.95 points per kick.

The numbers don't bear out


The decision not to punt? According to Kelley's statistics, when a team punts from near its end zone, the opponent will take possession inside the 40-yard line and will then score a touchdown 77 percent of the time. If it recovers on downs inside the 10, it will score a touchdown 92 percent of the time. "So [forsaking] a punt, you give your offense a chance to stay on the field," he said. "And if you miss, the odds of the other team scoring only increase 15 percent. It's like someone said, '[Punting] is what you do on fourth down,' and everyone did it without asking why."

https://www.si.com/more-sports/2011/09/15/kelley-pulaski



https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/11/15/5105958/fourth-down-pulaski-academy-kevin-kelley

When faced with a fourth down, there are four numbers that should influence the decision:


The offensive expected points that the current spot is worth. From the 1 to the 99-yard line, the expected points that a spot is worth ranges from about 0.5 points to six points. From this number, you have to subtract the opponent's expected points for taking over on downs if the conversion is unsuccessful.
The expected probability of a successful 4th down conversion. 4th and 1 has a higher probability than 4th and 10, and this should factor into the decision.

Numbers 3 and 4 are used to estimate the opponent’s field position if a decision to punt is made.
The average expected punt. This is pretty easy to calculate based on past performance.
The opponent’s expected punt return. Again, this is pretty easy to estimate based on past performance.

The basic formula is this: max of: ( P(conv) * exp pts ) - ( 1-P(conv) * exp pts ), or exp pts at spot after punt and return.
It looks something like this
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3573137/Screen_Shot_2013-11-14_at_7.15.31_PM_medium.png

In the example above, the fourth-down spot is the 50-yard line. The expected P(conv) is .50, the team's average punt (chosen for example purposes) is 40 yards and the opponent's average return is 10 yards. in this scenario, the expected point value of going for it is 0.0 points, and the expected opponent point value of punting is minus-1.8 points. Zero is more than minus-1.8, so going for it is justified.

http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3573169/Screen_Shot_2013-11-14_at_7.18.22_PM_medium.png

In this scenario, the fourth-down spot is the 35-yard line and the distance to go is more favorable, so the estimated P(conv) is 0.70. The average punt is 30 yards and the average opponent punt return is 20 yards. In this case, the expected points of going for it on fourth down is 1.7, and the expected opponent points after a punt is minus-1.9. That's an expected point swing of 3.6 points. Not bad.
One more example:
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/assets/3573177/Screen_Shot_2013-11-14_at_7.20.34_PM_medium.png



In this scenario the conventional wisdom is to always punt. The fourth-down spot is on the offense's own 20-yard line. The P(conv) is lower at 0.50, and the average punt and average returns are the same as the last example. In this case, the expected points is negative regardless of what choice is made. However, the expected points from going for it on fourth down are still greater than the expected opponent points after punting.
Conventional wisdom is wrong. Kelley and the entire Pulaski Academy football team know it, and they're using it to win football games.
If you want to play around with the decision tool I screen-shot, you can download it from my dropbox (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13245286/4th%20Down%20Decision%20Tool2.xlsx).
I don't think this kind of analysis would be a surprise to any decent coach. So, why do coaches "play it safe" (as if it weren't safer to make the choice to score more points)?
The answer to that, I think, lies in the way that we view errors of commission versus errors of omission. Or in other words, a coach that makes a choice to punt the ball from the 20-yard line would be viewed as making sound decisions, whereas one that chooses to go for it on the 20-yard line is considered a risk-taker. If the decision to punt turns out to be the decision that gives the ball back and the opponent then scores a TD, then the decision to punt is hardly considered as part of the evaluation of the sequence of events. If the decision to go for it fails and the opponent scores a TD, then the decision will be second-guessed ad nauseum. The result of both decisions is the same, but one would be criticized much more harshly than the other.
Humans are funny creatures.



He's shows similar breakdowns on on-sides and 2 point conversions but I'm struggling to find them with my limited google search time but the math is very similar.

I'm not an advocate for never punting, never kicking a PAT, etc... but it's real hard to ignore actual math from programs committing to the mentality rather than those who never do it and then try.

It'd be like a normal person at their job going "I know I never do this, but I tried it once so now I'm going to try to do this method for this super important calculation for my company" and then when it fails, because it's not something that's been worked on, everyone goes "See, that's why we don't do that".

[clenz]

Another look at the mindset


Most high-school teams, when they have road games, want to arrive at the stadium 2 to 2 ½ hours early prior to a game. The usual protocol for road games is that the team arrives early, they get out of the bus, unload stuff, walk around, have some team meetings, stretch, warm-up, and invariably, a lot of time is spent sitting around waiting for the game to start. I asked people in our program, why do we arrive at our opponent’s stadium 2 ½ hours early on game day? And no one had a good answer for me, other than give standard pat answers like, "it’s good to be early," or "because that’s what my coach did when we played," or "because that’s what we’ve always done." Again, none of those answers are satisfactory answers in terms of questioning why we are doing something. Another common coaching staff answer was, "So that our players arrive early enough to get ready, get mentally prepared, get stretched out and get their game-faces on." So players can get mentally prepared for the game? As a coaching staff, we’ve been preparing our players all week for this game. If they’re not prepared by the time they arrive at the stadium, then something’s wrong. If anything, all this standing and sitting around is making them nervous – and takes away from their mental focus and preparation. Arriving at an opposing stadium 2 ½-hours early for a game wasn’t deemed a productive action. So by that measure, then why were we doing it?

45 minutes. That’s it. 45 minutes means we’ve got 10 minutes to unload the bus and get inside, and about 5-minutes to get dressed. I’m not going to lie – it’s very much a "hustle-up-hurry-up" mindset and that’s exactly what we’re striving for. We hustle our butts, we get out on the field for a sharp, highly organized 10-minute warm-up-and-stretch period, and afterward, we’ll go back into the locker room for a pre-game talk. We come back out when the refs tell us that it’s time to play the game. We’re prepared for all of this. When our bus pulls up at that opposing stadium, we are all business. The hustle-up/hurry-up mindset on game-day dovetails nicely with our philosophy offensively and defensively, which is to be very aggressive and to always be in "attack mode." So our playing style fits into our arrival-time mindset perfectly. We show up. We get off the bus. We’re all business and we attack the opponent.

...

In addition to never punting, Pulaski always onside kicks. This isn't just a mathematical advantage - this a tactical and schematic advantage. Because they always do it, they're really good at it. Because you rarely do it, you're terrible at it. I like those odds.

A regular high school football team will spend about 15 minutes on onside kicks during one 2 a day practice and probably practice it once more during the season with about three actual kicks occurring. Sound like a recipe for skill mastery to you? No matter. All coaches have an implicit gentleman's agreement not to onside kick unless it's the final moments of a game.
Pulaski practices onside kicking every day and identifies players with a specific knack for coming up with the ball. Not by guessing - by drilling, watching and devising strategies to maximize outcomes. They run onside recovery "plays." Their opponents are out there in a situation they've never experienced hoping for the best against a group of skilled repo men.

....

Kelley's math is also pretty compelling: when they kick it off normally, the receiving team gets it on the 33 (if they don't bring it back for a touchdown). When Pulaski fails on an inside kick, the other team gets it on their 47. 14 yards in exchange for forcing a turnover on roughly 1 out of every 3-5 kick attempts.

...

Kickoffs occur at the beginning of a half or after Pulaski has scored. Think about the psychology at work there. Your offense is supposed to get the ball. Your defense is supposedto get a rest and get some whiteboard time with the defensive coordinator to figure out what Pulaski just did to score. They kick, recover and now they're about to score again. You never saw the ball. You never got your adjustments in. Your players are freaking out. How will their nerves be on the next kick?

...

You can reverse that scenario to bad outcomes for Pulaski and that will happen, but the point is that Kelley has built the entire program to be impervious to what cripples other teams. Their guys are mentally tougher than yours because they always play in the fringes of chaos - they're experts in weirdness. You're playing weird just one week. They're veterans of weird outcomes and know that leads with time on the clock either way mean nothing. Just keep playing.
In the same scenario, your team is on the constant verge of panic.

...

https://www.barkingcarnival.com/2014/10/7/6943577/always-onside-kick-go-for-it-on-4th-down-arrive-at-the-stadium-late

[clenz]

So I guess in this context maybe they shouldn't have gone for 2. They likely weren't prepped for it. They have a coach unwilling to take risks, so of course they will fail more than they don't.

It's not just Kelley either.

Cal professor David Romer concluded that teams should not punt (http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf) when facing fourth-and-4 or less
NFL stats analyst Brian Burke has detailed the need to rethink fourth-down decision-making (http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-new-study-on-fourth-downs-go-for-it/);
Football Outsiders has conflated punts with turnovers (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2006/never-punting)

[Elvis was a Bison]

Not a big numbers/percentage guy. I go more by gut feel. I would have gone for two on the faith of Ric Flair! WOOOOO!!

[MR. CHICKEN]

Would it have changed anything? Maybe not?

JMU still stopped them after they scored. Even if Weber got the 2 points, if things played out the same (not saying they necessarily would have, but Weber failed to move the ball after the JMU TD), JMU still would have won with the field goal, just by one or two points, instead of 3.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


......END UH DEBATE.......@ POST #6.....xsighx......DOMO ORAGATO........1122......xnodx......BRAWK!!

[FUBeAR]

......END UH DEBATE.......@ POST #6.....xsighx......DOMO ORAGATO........1122......xnodx......BRAWK!!

I think the FULL question is:

"At that point in the game, without any knowledge of the future, should Weber have gone for 2 before the JMU offside call on the kick AND/OR should they have gone for 2 AFTER the JMU offside call."

Even I know that I shouldn't have had that last shot of tequila AFTER I throw up and/or pass out and/or get thrown in jail. The question is whether I should or not BEFORE I know those things...and the answer, as in this case, is ALWAYS, "YES, GO FOR IT!!!"

[TypicalTribe]

Would it interest anyone to know that Weber was 4/5 on 2 point tries this season?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Katfan]

A better play would have been to stop JMU from marching down the field....
This. No way you go for 2. Stop JMU from converting 2 point try.

- - - Updated - - -


A better play would have been to stop JMU from marching down the field....
This. No way you go for 2. Stop JMU from converting 2 point try.

[mvemjsunpx]

Just saw this thread and haven't read most of the posts but I would almost always go for two late in a game if chance to go up by nine, especially being an underdog on the road. Going for two gives your team a point blank chance to ice the game, yet still leaves you with high percentage chance of at least going to OT should you not make it. There's always a chance your opponent could attempt a two-point conversion for the win should you not make it, but that's a chance I'd be willing to take if I've got a chance to go up two scores. Kicking the extra point is playing "not to lose," which is fine if you're a heavy favorite at home, and you feel confident you shut your opponent down in the final minutes or win in OT. But if I was in Weber's shoes, I'm 100% going for two in that scenario. Not even a question in my mind.

Except it didn't in this instance, since JMU outscored them 10-0 after that.

Unless you're in a shootout or something, the odds favor kicking the PAT and going up 8. These two teams are defense-first, so I can't imagine either of their coaches would've really thought about going for 2 in that situation—even if they are the relatively rare coaches who think hard about 2PC probabilities. I'm more aggressive on 2PC "theory" than the vast majority of football people (e.g., I would always go for 2 to tie even in the first half), but going for 2 to go up 9 instead of 8 leans toward "suicidally aggressive."

[th0m]

Yeah but Weber could have managed the clock differently being up by 1 vs being tied. Jmu still scores the 7/8 but might not have the opportunity to get the ball back.

[mvemjsunpx]

Yeah but Weber could have managed the clock differently being up by 1 vs being tied. Jmu still scores the 7/8 but might not have the opportunity to get the ball back.

I assume you mean "up 2," since JMU wouldn't have gone for 2 if they were down 9 before the touchdown. That doesn't change your argument, though.

Weber probably would've managed the clock differently, but they would've had to get a first down to run out the clock anyway. Plus, JMU wouldn't have wasted a TO on the 2-point conversion if they just needed a PAT to tie/cut it to 2.

[MR. CHICKEN]

......TUBBY USED TA SAY ON RADIO SHOW....DUH 2 PT CONVERSION PLAYS.....ARE PREDETERMINED...DURIN' DUH WEEK....BASED ON DEFENSE......BEIN' PLAYED DAT WEEK........ONE/TWO RUNNING....ONE /TWO PASSIN'....SO DURIN' TIME-OUT....JES' MATTER UH SELECTIN' ONE....AWK!

.....COACHES HAVE CHARTS.....DAT TELL 'EM WHAT SITUATIONS......TA GO FO' 2........BRAWK!

....SO IN WEBER'S CASE......JES' 'NOTHERAH STAT TA ADD TA.....CLENZ'S....% UH FAILURE.....DOODLE-DOO!

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Why does the stadium look so empty for that game?

[th0m]

Why does the stadium look so empty for that game?

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?199518-Annual-Playoff-xsmhx-Attendance-Thread

[CappinHard]

Broncos just scored a TD and went up by 7, they decided to go for 2 to go up by 2 scores. 3:27 left in the 3rd quarter, so it's not the same situation, but still interesting. Fwiw, I do think that going up by 8 very late in the game is better than risking going for 2 and only being up by 7.