Going For Two?

by SCM on Oct 4, 2009 8:25 PM CDT

Disclaimer: This is NOT a criticism of the coaching staff in any, way, shape, or form.

You know, I've been thinking more and more about the end of yesterday's game, and after talking with my dad about it I think I may have changed my mind: that was the perfect time to go for 2 and the win (shades of Gary Moeller?). You don't get many chances to steal a football game and yesterday was one of them. It would've been the perfect time to pull out a play that no one had seen us use before (swinging gate, statue of liberty, etc) and walk away with the football game, no questions asked. I know, I know, even I said we had all the momentum, but we had a chance to win the football game without the football leaving our hands... the more I think about it, the more I kinda wish we had gone for it. Of course had we gone for it and missed? Well then we'd probably be hearing endless diatribes about how we were undefeated in OT and had all the momentum...

Any opinions expressed in Fanposts or Fanshots are not the opinions of Maize n Brew. Peruse at your own risk.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like going for two there

In the olden days of yore, when there were ties, coaches pretty much always went for the win in that situation (at the end of the game) rather than the tie. So there’s something nicely old school about it.

I have to admit, though, it didn’t even occur to me. I think I was just stunned they had made it to that point. So I can’t know what I would have thought.

by Rasmus on Oct 4, 2009 9:31 PM CDT reply actions

Who knows

It’s 50-50 either way. I think the coaching staff made the right call on the PAT. It’s only in hindsight we even consider it. Frankly, I was thinking the second we tied it “just get to overtime”.

Looking at overtime, realistically, Michigan was at the 8 when Tate forced a pass he shouldn’t have. Minimum he gets three if he just eats the ball. It’ll come. I think it was the right call kicking the PAT.

Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer

by Maize n Brew Dave on Oct 5, 2009 12:59 PM CDT reply actions

momentum was on our side big...

… I like going into OT there. Just unfortunate that Forcier let a freshman moment hurt us there. He needed to pull it down and get the three. Plus, our D had been doing the job, but that obviously didn’t hold true. Really, I’m okay with any decision made. However, at the time of extra point – it was still raining hard and we saw a couple of plays earlier what could happen when the ball went slipping out of Forcier’s hand and duck dived into the endzone – luckily to the ground. I was actually very nervous about the extra point kick becasue of the rain.

by MarcK on Oct 6, 2009 6:13 PM CDT reply actions

Better strategy

Go for it after the first TD. That way you have a chance to make up for it and still force OT if you miss. (Making a couple simplifying assumptions – kicking it is automatic, OT is a 50-50 shot, success probability on two-point tries is a constant – this is a superior strategy to kicking both times as long as you have at least a 38.2% chance of success.) In fact, going for 2 on the second TD after kicking on the first is never optimal: either kicking both times or going for two the first time will be better.

by SpartanDan on Oct 6, 2009 10:35 PM CDT reply actions

I've seen that argued elsewhere, but

I don’t quite understand it. How is going for two to win the game at the end affected by going for it earlier? I understand that if you make the first two-point conversion, then you only need to kick to win at the end. But how is that different from kicking first and then going for it at the end?

Either way, you’re still faced with that constant each time you go for two. Your odds of making it don’t improve. Since you only need one two-point conversion to win, it seems wrong to argue that there is any advantage to going for it first.

Perhaps I’m thick, but I don’t see how going for it first improves the odds of anything. The odds of making one of two versus making one of one are not relevant here.

by Rasmus on Oct 7, 2009 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions

But how is that different from kicking first and then going for it at the end?

The difference is you have a second chance to force OT if you fail the first time. Your chances to win if you go for two the second time are P, where P is the probability of making a two-point conversion. If you go for two the first time, it’s:
- P probability that you make the two-pointer and win (kick the PAT the second time)
- (1-P) probability that you miss; in which case you go for two again, the results being P*(1-P) for making it and going to OT, (1-P)^2 for missing again and losing in regulation.
Thus, the total probability of winning if you go for two the first time is P + P*(1-P)/2, compared to just P if you go for it the second time only.

by SpartanDan on Oct 8, 2009 1:21 AM CDT up reply actions

Oh, I see

Thanks for the explanation. I still don’t understand how the odds of winning if you go for it the first time are better than 50-50, the odds if you kick both times. But I’ll take your word for it…

by Rasmus on Oct 8, 2009 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Well . . .

If you kick the extra point both times, then you head into overtime, where you have a 50-50 shot at winning. So kicking it both times gives you a 50% chance of winning the game.

Suppose you think that you’ll make a 2 point conversion 45% of the time.

Then P+P*(1-P)/2 = .57375, or just over a 57% chance to win the game.

What it comes down to is that if you think you’ll make a 2 point conversion roughly 38 percent of the time or better, then you are better off going for two on the first TD. (as at 38% that gives you roughly a 49.7% chance to win).

by KC_Rose on Oct 10, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions