You're down by 15 with 7:00 minutes left in the game (2 Viewers)

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Those that voted "obviously go for 2" really have no clue....end of story!!!!

Good input here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The one thing I really disagree with is that the leading team can't put the information to great use. If they try to run out the clock and have a 3rd and long they can put that information to great use and make it detrimental to the opposing team. If you make the 2pt conversion you are down by 7 and if you kick the FG, you are down by 8. In calling that 3rd down play, the other team would be far more pressed to pass if you are down by 7 or 8 than down by 9. If you are down by 9, the other team could call a running play and either burn a lot more time or make you use a timeout. If you are down by 1 score, you may force them to pass.

I think you are forgetting that being down by 7 or 8 could provide you with an advantage that could allow you to even get the second TD. All the discussion so far is assuming you get the 2nd TD and either don't have to go for 2 or have to go for 2. I haven't seen people talk about how being down by 7 or 8 would allow you to force the other team's hand in some situations getting you a better chance (like an incomplete pass on 3rd down) to get the second TD to even have a chance to tie.

This hasn't been forgotten, it was discussed earlier today. If my opponent is facing a third and long, I want them to run the ball. Like everything else that's been discussed in this thread, you need to weigh all the outcomes, not just the ones that support your argument. Sure, they could throw an incomplete pass, and yes, I'd prefer that to stopping them on a running play. But passing also gives them a much better chance of converting the first down, which would be a huge loss for me. I need the ball back - all things considered, I definitely want my opponent running the ball on third down, which as you correctly pointed out, they are probably more likely to do that up by two scores than up by one. A team with a two score lead will play more conservatively than a team with a (perceived) one score lead. And if I'm the team that's down by two scores, that's exactly how I want it.

Hmmm, I think I still disagree although if you have the actual %s, I would believe you. Even if they complete the pass, it might not be a first down, so it would be the same as a run. I think the chance that they get an incomplete and stop the clock could be huge. That said, the situation I am talking about is when you are still down by 1TD or more with little time on the clock where 30 seconds or one timeout could be the difference in your ability to get the last TD you need.I think your last statement is exactly what I believe and what I want to see. I want to see the other team taking risks that they shouldn't so that I can get back in the game. What if they get the 1st on a 3rd and long run, not only did it kill the clock, it crippled my chance to tie. The other note that you didn't mention is that if they do go for the pass, I have a chance at a turnover. 3rd and long when a RB is just running out the clock is not a good chance at a fumble. I don't know if I have ever seen a fumble on a run out the clock run (where the RB holds the ball in both arms), but any time they are going for a pass on 3rd and long is a chance for an INT. Maybe not a great one, but if you get it, you have a far greater chance to tie the game.

That's definitely a debatable point. On average, pass attempts pick up more yards than rush attempts. On the other hand, I believe they also result in more turnovers, and presumably take less time off the clock. A lot of it is highly dependent on the situation. Ultimately I need to get the ball back; it is my belief that my overall chances of doing so are better if my opponent plays more conservatively, but that's one of the more subjective parts of the debate.Now, it's still not clear that any such strategic adjustments make up the difference for the information advantage gained by the trailing team. It's really really really good for the trailing team to know whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to being down by 8; for that advantage to even out, as some apparently think it does, it would have to be really really really good for the team with the lead to be able to adjust their playing style based on whether they're up by 7 or 8 or 9. I just don't see it. I don't think they change much, and I think what they do change isn't even necessarily in their best interests. Having the information revealed by going for 2 on the first TD is still a huge net positive for the trailing team, imo. I'm still honestly surprised anyone challenged that.

All of the bolded phrases show just how subjective this is.

I admitted that part is subjective. That's why there were so many phrases for you to bold. I think you even missed a few.ETA: and on closer inspection, you didn't even bold all the right phrases. Whether or not pass attempts pick up more yards than rush attempts isn't subjective. Whether or not they result in more turnovers or take more time off the clock isn't subjective (I said "I believe" and "presumably" because I hadn't looked up the stats, not because I was just giving an opinion). Whether or not it's really really really good for the trailing team to know if they're down by 7 or 9 isn't subjective; it's obviously really good, the only question is if there are negatives that outweigh the really really really good part.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

To ignore all of the other potential factors in a game is ridiculous. This isn't a math equation, its a football game.

It IS a question of math. It's just not easy to come up with the right answer. You can easily do the math and say "you should go for two with X time left, down Y if you have a 43.1% chance of converting". The big thing is figuring out if you really have a 43.1% chance of converting right now with this offense on this day vs that defense with this personnel package, etc etc. But at the end of the day, teams are too conservative when going for it on 4th down or going for 2.Probably the most egregious example I can think of was in Big Ben's rookie (I think) year in the AFCCG against the Patriots. It's later in the 4th quarter and they are down 14. It's 4th and goal at the Pats 2 yard line. It's the exact distance you'd need for a two point conversion. What does Cowher do? He kicks the FG, making it an 11 point game. That means if they can miraculously hold the Pats twice and drive down and score a TD once, they'd need a two point conversion to tie. Essentially what Cowher did was decline to go for 2 yards when it counted for 6 points, but would go for it later when it only counted for 2 points. Absolutely horrible. Someone else did this exact same thing recently too, but I can't remember who it was.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

This thread has really taken a strange turn. It seems the last refuge of the PAT-first crowd is some vague notion that knowing whether the margin is one score or two is a bigger advantage for the team in the lead than it is for the team that's trailing. At first glance that seems obviously false, but if someone wants to explain why it isn't I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

 

[humpback]

Again, you're speaking as if your opinions are facts. The goal of any team is to win the game, correct? How you go about acheiving that goal will vary greatly depending on the circumstances that are constantly evolving throughout the course of a game. If you think anything else you're just fooling yourself. Also, just because a trailing team's objective (in your opinion) might be very different if they are down 7 or 9, that doesn't necessarily give them and advantage.

I can't possibly give you the counter-strategy for the nearly infinite possible sets of circumstances from that point on. If you give me a specific scenario where the trailing team has an advantage in your opinion, I can give you an advantage for the leading team in that same exact scenario. Netting who has the bigger advantage is entirely subjective, but I think it's pretty much equal.

Lay out the big advantages for the team in the lead. You keep saying they exist but still haven't done it.

Look in the mirror. YOU are the one saying that there's this huge net advantage to the trailing team, yet YOU haven't shown them. All I'm saying is I don't see any big net advantage to either side.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Again, you're speaking as if your opinions are facts. The goal of any team is to win the game, correct? How you go about acheiving that goal will vary greatly depending on the circumstances that are constantly evolving throughout the course of a game. If you think anything else you're just fooling yourself. Also, just because a trailing team's objective (in your opinion) might be very different if they are down 7 or 9, that doesn't necessarily give them and advantage.

I can't possibly give you the counter-strategy for the nearly infinite possible sets of circumstances from that point on. If you give me a specific scenario where the trailing team has an advantage in your opinion, I can give you an advantage for the leading team in that same exact scenario. Netting who has the bigger advantage is entirely subjective, but I think it's pretty much equal.

Lay out the big advantages for the team in the lead. You keep saying they exist but still haven't done it.

Look in the mirror. YOU are the one saying that there's this huge net advantage to the trailing team, yet YOU haven't shown them. All I'm saying is I don't see any big net advantage to either side.

Well I've done it numerous times. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with it.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I once watched a 40 year-old teacher argue a higher level logic problem with a young student. It was humorous, but almost sad watching the teacher get frustrated trying to convey the basic assumptions and principles that were required to obtain the right answer, that seemed obvious to the adult, but that the child was simply not yet capable of grasping.

This is pretty awesome.

 

[humpback]

To ignore all of the other potential factors in a game is ridiculous. This isn't a math equation, its a football game.

It IS a question of math. It's just not easy to come up with the right answer. You can easily do the math and say "you should go for two with X time left, down Y if you have a 43.1% chance of converting". The big thing is figuring out if you really have a 43.1% chance of converting right now with this offense on this day vs that defense with this personnel package, etc etc. But at the end of the day, teams are too conservative when going for it on 4th down or going for 2.Probably the most egregious example I can think of was in Big Ben's rookie (I think) year in the AFCCG against the Patriots. It's later in the 4th quarter and they are down 14. It's 4th and goal at the Pats 2 yard line. It's the exact distance you'd need for a two point conversion. What does Cowher do? He kicks the FG, making it an 11 point game. That means if they can miraculously hold the Pats twice and drive down and score a TD once, they'd need a two point conversion to tie. Essentially what Cowher did was decline to go for 2 yards when it counted for 6 points, but would go for it later when it only counted for 2 points. Absolutely horrible. Someone else did this exact same thing recently too, but I can't remember who it was.

It isn't "not easy" to come up with the right answer using math, it's impossible. There is no way you can accurately predict what your odds are of converting a 2 pt. conversion before the fact.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I once watched a 40 year-old teacher argue a higher level logic problem with a young student. It was humorous, but almost sad watching the teacher get frustrated trying to convey the basic assumptions and principles that were required to obtain the right answer, that seemed obvious to the adult, but that the child was simply not yet capable of grasping.

This is pretty awesome.

Someone should bump an old Monty Hall thread or something and invite a few of these guys over.

 

[Jason Bourne]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

Go for 2 - every time.You play to win the game.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

This thread has really taken a strange turn. It seems the last refuge of the PAT-first crowd is some vague notion that knowing whether the margin is one score or two is a bigger advantage for the team in the lead than it is for the team that's trailing. At first glance that seems obviously false, but if someone wants to explain why it isn't I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

I think the summary for the defense for the PAT-first is that there is 7 minutes left in the game. Thus:1. Keep team mentally fresh by knowing it's a one score game. Keep other team on their heels. With 7 minutes left to play, there is a LOT of things that can happen.

2. The other team has a good chance to score again so you take the points when you can get them. Leave the 2 points when you KNOW you need them.

3. You may get two (or more) possessions -- there is a decent chance you don't even need the 2 points.

 

[renesauz]

Anyone who claims there is a no-brainer choice in either direction is a fool.

To ignore all of the other potential factors in a game is ridiculous. This isn't a math equation, its a football game.

Some teams in some games could have a 20% 2-pt conversion rate vs that opponent. Some teams could have an 80% rate. Some teams might only have a 25% chance of stopping the other team from running for a 1st down in 3 plays. Some teams might have an 80% chance of stopping the other team from running for a 1st in 3 plays.

The only difference between going for 2 now vs. later is knowledge. How the two team's coach and players use that knowledge is the PRIMARY determiner of whether or not it is a good idea. Not league averages, not gut feelings, not imagined scenarios, only how the knowledge can predictibly be used.

I've argued for the "kick it" crowd mostly because of the arrogance from the "go for 2" crowd. In reality both situations could be right, but it COMPLETELY DEPENDS ON THE TEAMS INVOLVED. To ignore that makes it just a game of numbers....but as they say, that's why they play the games. If you can't get that and think your answer is right no matter what, than I'm pretty sure you are a fool....and there's just no arguing with a fool.

I've argued vehemently on the side of the "go for 2" crowd largely due to the arrogance by the kick it crowd. While I think go for 2 is the right answer most of the time in this scenario, I agree with your supposition that it will vary based on the teams involved....as you said, the differance either way is not substantial enough to leave a clear answer 100% of the time. If the other team is picking up 5+ yards per carry at will, you probably need to kick it. If the other team has gone 3 and out on their last 5 possessions, your definately go for 2.

 

[humpback]

Again, you're speaking as if your opinions are facts. The goal of any team is to win the game, correct? How you go about acheiving that goal will vary greatly depending on the circumstances that are constantly evolving throughout the course of a game. If you think anything else you're just fooling yourself. Also, just because a trailing team's objective (in your opinion) might be very different if they are down 7 or 9, that doesn't necessarily give them and advantage.

I can't possibly give you the counter-strategy for the nearly infinite possible sets of circumstances from that point on. If you give me a specific scenario where the trailing team has an advantage in your opinion, I can give you an advantage for the leading team in that same exact scenario. Netting who has the bigger advantage is entirely subjective, but I think it's pretty much equal.

Lay out the big advantages for the team in the lead. You keep saying they exist but still haven't done it.

Look in the mirror. YOU are the one saying that there's this huge net advantage to the trailing team, yet YOU haven't shown them. All I'm saying is I don't see any big net advantage to either side.

Well I've done it numerous times. I'm sorry you're having so much trouble with it.

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

 

[renesauz]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

The math is easy on this one...NO. You've got a much better chance to win in OT then to win on the conversion.Even if you converted the 2, you leave the other team in a "four down" drive....a lot tougher to stop a FG drive with 3 minutes and 4 downs then a normal drive that starts conservatively (the other team CAN'T risk a turnover on their own side of the field in a tie game late).

 

[Choke]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

Go for 2 - every time.You play to win the game.

And lose your coaching job and end up as a commentator next to Matt Millen and Steve Young.

Thats right were the "go for 2" people will end up.

 

[renesauz]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though? Up 9, they go so over-conservative it's an easy stop while the trailing team KNOWS they need two more drives. Up 7 provides no advantage over up 8...no change in how they play. Either way, the trailing team gains something, the leading team gains...nothing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

The advantage to the trailing team of knowing whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to 8, is not only obvious but it's also been spelled out several times in this thread anyway. Trying to keep you up to speed is honestly getting tedious, so someone else will have to go over it with you again if they feel like it.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though?

We're still waiting for that part.

 

[humpback]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though? Up 9, they go so over-conservative it's an easy stop while the trailing team KNOWS they need two more drives. Up 7 provides no advantage over up 8...no change in how they play. Either way, the trailing team gains something, the leading team gains...nothing.

Wow, this is getting ridiculous. First of all, you have no idea if they go so over-conservative, nor can you say it's an easy stop. Seriously, do you think a team can force a 3 and out every time even if they know what's coming? Anyway, if going "so over-conservative" was a disadvantage, do you think that teams in the lead would do that? It works more often than not, so it's an advantage. If you're trying to say that is another advantage for the trailing team, then they should just go for 2 and miss it on purpose. Yeah, that makes sense.The leading team can choose to do whatever they want with that info. The part you are leaving out is that there is more than just offense- the leading team also has defense and special teams, and if you don't think they will change what they do in those aspects of the game with that information, I can't help you.

 

[humpback]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

The advantage to the trailing team of knowing whether they're down by 7 or 9, as opposed to 8, is not only obvious but it's also been spelled out several times in this thread anyway. Trying to keep you up to speed is honestly getting tedious, so someone else will have to go over it with you again if they feel like it.

Get over yourself. You don't even know the difference between information and advantage.

 

[Jayrod]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though?

We're still waiting for that part.

I'm know several people have actually argued this point (including myself), but I'll humor you:If a leading team knows it is for certain at least a 2 possession game, they will begin to take up as much time as possible. If they are a good running team, they will certainly go to their best plays that have worked all game and run the clock down all the way with each play. If they can manage to get even 2 first downs, the game will be over before you can score twice, thus ending the game. Even if they can't manage a couple of first downs, each time they have a posession, it will take up almost 3 minutes of game time (unless TO's are called). On punts, they will be very careful with protection to decrease the chance of a block and directional kick for no returns, and on kick returns they will likely have their hands team in and decrease any chance of an onside recovery. There is no more worry about the offense running the ball, but the defense goes into a QB attack mode with deep coverage drops, removing chances for big plays and increasing the chance of a QB sack (ever here about how much a good DL likes being able to "pin their ears back" and go after the QB?) These are all advantages of the team leading and changes they would make if the game were a known 2 posession game vs. a possible 1 posession game. With the doubt of knowing whether or not you need 2 posessions, they may feel the need to move the ball and try to kick a FG, thus taking more risks with downfield passing plays. They may feel the need to play field posistion more and take a few more risks. They may be more worried about the run and less apt to defend the pass as well.But what does all this depend on? Who has the advantage? Well, it depends on the teams involved. A good running team and/or a good pass rushing defense wants to know sooner if it is a 2 posession game than a team who has to pass to move the ball or a team than can't get to the QB with out blitzing.I can't believe all of you guys who presume to know so much about football can't fathom how these are advantages for the team in the lead. As a coach, I'd love to know right away how much of a lead I have to work with.

 

[sn0mm1s]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though? Up 9, they go so over-conservative it's an easy stop while the trailing team KNOWS they need two more drives. Up 7 provides no advantage over up 8...no change in how they play. Either way, the trailing team gains something, the leading team gains...nothing.

If the winning team is up 7 or 8 they play as if they were up 7. Which means they don't view running up the middle 3 times the best way to win because the losing team is potentially 1 possession away from tying. If the winning team converts a first down they will continue to try to move the ball. They will most likely add passes into their offensive game. This is good because passes have a higher variance both in yards gained, turnovers, and clock stoppage than runs. This benefits the losing team because the losing team doesn't want average plays - they want high variance plays that will help them get back into the game.If the winning team is up by 9 with 7 minutes then they play knowing that you need 2 possessions. You act as if conservative play is the wrong call here - when it most likely is the right call. Best case scenario (barring a fumble) you lose 2 minutes of clock time meaning you have to make up 9 pts in 5 minutes. The winning team has a *huge* advantage here - especially if their 3 consecutive runs put them anywhere close to converting a 1st down. They know that if they convert the 1st down that the losing team is, for all intents and purposes, done and *they* get to decide this.Being up 9 makes coaching decisions easier on both sides and that will invariably benefit the team that is already winning.I mean, are people really arguing that a hail mary at the end of a game is more likely to succeed in comparison to a deep ball in the middle of the game because the offenses and defenses know what is coming? All the information is right there in front of both teams and coaches. The trailing team has the advantage though right?

 

[Spaces Lines and Laces]

How are they different? It's worth two points either way.

I'll type s l o w l y for you....Downside of missing early:1. Being down 9 is a major psychological blow to your team. The odds of getting the ball back once much less twice go way down.

I don't think being down 9 is a major psychological blow to a team that was just down by 15. Would you rather be down 9 kicking off with 7:00 left, or down 2 kicking off with 30 seconds left?

You kind of prove the other side's argument:Why would you rather be down 9 with 7 minutes? Because you think you can get the ball back and score 2x? Ok, I'll give you that. But on the flip side, if you go for the kick, you're down 8 with 7 minutes left. The same team that could make 2 stops, score a TD and field goal down by 9, is now only able to score once in the same 7 minutes?I think not.Also, College teams kick off first not to know what they have to have, but to avoid being 1 upped. I guess it's kind of knowing what you need, but the overtime system is so different it's not even comparable. If the 1st team goes for 1, you can go for 2 and steal it. That's alot of power. And college defenses are less effective on this than the pro's.

 

[Spaces Lines and Laces]

Also,

If my team can't convert the 2 with 30 seconds left, I'm pretty much accepting the loss. You came within a 2 point conversion of winning. You put the team in a position to tie the game with little time left. That's all you can do in that situation.

If you miss it on the 1st TD, you may never even get within 2.

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

Almost Never do that. I see people talk about going for 2 with 50 seconds left in the game and that is absurdly stupid. if you don;t get it you are almost definitely losing, but if you do happen to make it, the other teams has 4 downs (if needed) to get into FG range and we have seen hundreds of games where a team scores in less than a minute at the end of a game...In fact, we have seen teams score with only the kick off and in the playoffs.if you want to take the risk of going for the and going for 2 at the end of the game, there better be less than 15 seconds on the clock. Only if there is some huge upset would I possibly consider 40 seconds or so and that would be where all your defensive guys are hurt or maybe your kicker is hurt etc...

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you are down by 7 with 3 minutes to go, and you score a TD - do you go for two?

Go for 2 - every time.You play to win the game.

And lose your coaching job and end up as a commentator next to Matt Millen and Steve Young.

Thats right were the "go for 2" people will end up.

The funny thing is the "logic" used above to answer...probably not even understanding these scenarios have NOTHING to do with each other and I would almost bet that everyone who thinks going for 2 is the right move in this thread would say you almost never go for 2 with 3 minutes left...I left open almost because people have trouble thinking conceptually here at all. It is pretty rare that something is 100% absolute so when discussing one shouldn't have to bring up the rare circumstances that are outliers...such as your starting kicker and backup kicker both broke their legs in the game, or the other teams defense has nothing but 4th strong guys on the field because of injuries...the talk is conceptual and in most all circumstances you should go for 2 1st in this thread and in the above you should kick the extra point and not go for 2

 

[Liquid Tension]

How are they different? It's worth two points either way.

I'll type s l o w l y for you....Downside of missing early:1. Being down 9 is a major psychological blow to your team. The odds of getting the ball back once much less twice go way down.

I don't think being down 9 is a major psychological blow to a team that was just down by 15. Would you rather be down 9 kicking off with 7:00 left, or down 2 kicking off with 30 seconds left?

You kind of prove the other side's argument:Why would you rather be down 9 with 7 minutes? Because you think you can get the ball back and score 2x? Ok, I'll give you that. But on the flip side, if you go for the kick, you're down 8 with 7 minutes left. The same team that could make 2 stops, score a TD and field goal down by 9, is now only able to score once in the same 7 minutes?I think not.Also, College teams kick off first not to know what they have to have, but to avoid being 1 upped. I guess it's kind of knowing what you need, but the overtime system is so different it's not even comparable. If the 1st team goes for 1, you can go for 2 and steal it. That's alot of power. And college defenses are less effective on this than the pro's.

OMG

 

[Jersey35]

How are they different? It's worth two points either way.

I'll type s l o w l y for you....Downside of missing early:1. Being down 9 is a major psychological blow to your team. The odds of getting the ball back once much less twice go way down.

I don't think being down 9 is a major psychological blow to a team that was just down by 15. Would you rather be down 9 kicking off with 7:00 left, or down 2 kicking off with 30 seconds left?

You kind of prove the other side's argument:Why would you rather be down 9 with 7 minutes? Because you think you can get the ball back and score 2x? Ok, I'll give you that. But on the flip side, if you go for the kick, you're down 8 with 7 minutes left. The same team that could make 2 stops, score a TD and field goal down by 9, is now only able to score once in the same 7 minutes?I think not.Also, College teams kick off first not to know what they have to have, but to avoid being 1 upped. I guess it's kind of knowing what you need, but the overtime system is so different it's not even comparable. If the 1st team goes for 1, you can go for 2 and steal it. That's alot of power. And college defenses are less effective on this than the pro's.

OMG

LOL.Hey LT, like I said, the some people aren't capable of understanding the core principles required to come to the right conclusion. You'll never get through to them.

 

[Choke]

that everyone who thinks going for 2 is the right move in this thread would say you almost never go for 2 with 3 minutes left...

damn near everyone thinks that already. regardless of what side you are on.

 

[Fensalk]

This, of course, ignores the momentum issue. So here is my question for the momentum people: what if it's the Super Bowl? Maybe not in a regular game, but surely everyone can be expected to give their all on every snap during the Super Bowl, right? Players wouldn't give up with 7 minutes left in the biggest game of their lives, right?

Some people don't like the spotlight. In big games, they get overly emotional. Some people might be more likely to quit in the biggest game of their lives. So it really depends.

 

[SSOG]

My null hypothesis is that "momentum" has a trivial impact on games at a professional level. I invite anyone to provide enough data to reject my null hypothesis.

Data for momentum? trivial?

NFL players are grown men. They're professionals. They've been playing football for 10-20 years. They've been down late in the game dozens of times before. They aren't going to sit on the sidelines and cry and pout and paint their nails and do their hair up in pigtails if they happen to be down by 9 points instead of by 7 points. If we're talking about 9 year old kids playing Pop Warner, then yeah, I think momentum and emotion are going to be overwhelming factors in the outcome in the game... but a clash between a hundred grown professionals who have seen everything under the sun already? Yes, I think the impact of "momentum" or "emotion" is trivial.If momentum is a real phenomenon that has a tangible impact on the game, then there should be plenty of data to support that. For instance, when a team comes back from a double digit deficit to tie the game in the 4th quarter, what is that team's winning percentage? That team has all the "momentum", so if "momentum" is a real phenomenon with a tangible impact, then they should have a pretty solid winning percentage, right?

As many in the "go for 2 now" crowd have pointed out, the probability of converting the 2 point conversion is the same regardless of when you go for it. However, the probability of scoring the 2nd TD in the first place decreases considerably when you're down 9 vs. being down 8 based on both teams' strategies, morale, etc.. While it's impossible to quantify that phenomenon, those that support waiting for the 2 point attempt think that negative outcome outweighs the "knowledge gain" which has been referenced repeatedly.

Strongly, strongly, strongly disagree. Do you think it's easier to score a TD when you're down 50 or when you're down 6? The further you're down, the easier it is to score because the other team doesn't care as much, and because the other team is more likely to be willing to trade points for time.

I've argued for the "kick it" crowd mostly because of the arrogance from the "go for 2" crowd.

The arrogance of the "go for 2" crowd? Are we reading the same thread, here?

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

If knowledge of how many points are needed is not more advantageous for the trailing team than it is for the leading team, then explain why every college football coach ever always chooses to go second in overtime so that they can have the knowledge of how many points they need.Also, if I were to create a Venn Diagram, one circle might represent information, and another circle might represent advantages. Those circles would not overlap perfectly- there would be information that was not an advantage (for instance, knowing the quarterback's birthday is information, but not an advantage). There would be advantages that were not information (for instance, being 6'6" is an advantage, but not information). There would also be overlap- pieces of information that also represented an advantage. Knowing how many possessions you need is information, but it also presents an advantage because it allows you to plan accordingly. Imagine if you blindfolded coaches so they couldn't see the scoreboard and then asked them to call plays without knowing what down, distance, or score differential it currently was. I would say that that lack of information would be a disadvantage. Do you think coaches would call a worse game if they had worse information? Because if so, you're agreeing that information can absolutely be an advantage.

Just because both teams have the same information does not mean that both teams have the same advantage. If both teams knew before a certain play that one of the CBs was going to fall on his butt, I would say that information would probably benefit the offense more than the defense. Yes, both teams had the exact same information, but the benefit of that information was unequal because one team was in a better position to act upon it, or because that information presented a greater opportunity or strategic shift to one team than it did to another. If both teams knew what play the offense had just called, that would be a huge advantage to the defense, even though both teams are acting on the exact same information. Just check out the superbowl between the Bucs and the Raiders to see that advantage in action.

 

[Fensalk]

NFL players are grown men. They're professionals. They've been playing football for 10-20 years. They've been down late in the game dozens of times before. They aren't going to sit on the sidelines and cry and pout and paint their nails and do their hair up in pigtails if they happen to be down by 9 points instead of by 7 points. If we're talking about 9 year old kids playing Pop Warner, then yeah, I think momentum and emotion are going to be overwhelming factors in the outcome in the game... but a clash between a hundred grown professionals who have seen everything under the sun already? Yes, I think the impact of "momentum" or "emotion" is trivial.

Fair enough. Some people think morale matters. Others don't. You might get a few military generals to disagree with you on that one.

If momentum is a real phenomenon that has a tangible impact on the game, then there should be plenty of data to support that. For instance, when a team comes back from a double digit deficit to tie the game in the 4th quarter, what is that team's winning percentage? That team has all the "momentum", so if "momentum" is a real phenomenon with a tangible impact, then they should have a pretty solid winning percentage, right?

The point is you'd have to separate teams into those with morale issues and those without, and we don't have a way to do that.

 

[sn0mm1s]

If knowledge of how many points are needed is not more advantageous for the trailing team than it is for the leading team, then explain why every college football coach ever always chooses to go second in overtime so that they can have the knowledge of how many points they need.

Not the same thing.1) There is no time management required. Which isn't true in the initial hypo. 2) The second team is guaranteed a possession. Which isn't true in the initial hypo.3) The second team will never be down more than 1 possession. Which isn't true in the initial hypo.4) The teams are obviously starting off tied and the second team may never trail. Which isn't true in the initial hypo.5) The first team doesn't initially know what they need to do to win. Which isn't true in the initial hypo.The second team always knows what it needs to do to continue or win the game/the first team does not.In pro football this is reversed. The team winning the coin flip almost always receives the ball because in that scenario they know exactly what they need to do to win.This is not true for trailing team in the hypo if they ever give up control of the ball to the winning team no matter what the score difference.

 

[SSOG]

The point is you'd have to separate teams into those with morale issues and those without, and we don't have a way to do that.

I'm wary of anyone who wants to manually remove points from a data set before drawing any conclusions from it. Separating out the teams "with morale issues and those without" seems like circular reasoning, to me. If a team weathers a double-digit comeback and still wins in overtime, then they must not have morale issues. How do we know they don't they have morale issues? Why, because they weathered a double-digit comeback and still won in overtime, of course! If a team gives up a double-digit comeback and then loses in overtime, then they must have morale issues. How do we know they have morale issues? Why, because they gave up a double-digit comeback and then lost in overtime! Therefore, momentum is a real phenomenon!It's kind of like the people who say that Peyton Manning chokes in big games, and then go on to manually remove games from the sample so that a "big game" is defined as any game Peyton Manning choked in.

 

[SSOG]

If knowledge of how many points are needed is not more advantageous for the trailing team than it is for the leading team, then explain why every college football coach ever always chooses to go second in overtime so that they can have the knowledge of how many points they need.

Not the same thing.

I never said it was the same thing as deciding whether to go for 2 after cutting the lead to 9. I offered college overtime up as an example of information being an advantage. In college, coaches prefer to know exactly how many points they have to score, even if it means the defense likewise knows how many points they have to score. This is a great example of two teams both possessing the exact same information, but benefiting from it unequally. There's absolutely no question that the coach going second has an advantage, despite both coaches being privy to the exact same information.Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage.

 

[Fensalk]

The point is you'd have to separate teams into those with morale issues and those without, and we don't have a way to do that.

I'm wary of anyone who wants to manually remove points from a data set before drawing any conclusions from it. Separating out the teams "with morale issues and those without" seems like circular reasoning, to me. If a team weathers a double-digit comeback and still wins in overtime, then they must not have morale issues. How do we know they don't they have morale issues? Why, because they weathered a double-digit comeback and still won in overtime, of course! If a team gives up a double-digit comeback and then loses in overtime, then they must have morale issues. How do we know they have morale issues? Why, because they gave up a double-digit comeback and then lost in overtime! Therefore, momentum is a real phenomenon!

I agree that's circular reasoning, and I don't believe in them either.

 

[monkeysee]

Totally demoralizing if you go for 2 and miss. Kick the PAT and then go for 2 to tie when you score again. If you go for it and miss then all hope is lost feeling sets in.

 

[Jersey35]

Totally demoralizing if you go for 2 and miss. Kick the PAT and then go for 2 to tie when you score again. If you go for it and miss then all hope is lost feeling sets in.

If you go for it and miss with VERY LITTLE time left, not only is the feeling demoralizing, it's also conclusive. :( at all the posters who think their 5 year-old daughter is in the game at crunch time.Gang, seriously, maybe there is a small bit of "momentum" or "emotion" to take into account here, but you can't quantify it, nor can you count on it. There are people who play better under pressure and those that don't. Sometimes those who play well under pressure still fail. Sometimes those who don't, succeed.Instead of trying to figure it all out, you put your team in the best position to win the game. If you've got a bad offense, bad defense - whatever - you give them the best chance to win - which is to put them in a situation where mathematically they have the best chance. If you've got a good offense, good defense - whatever - you give them the best chance to win by putting them in the position to make the plays - the one where mathematically they have the best chance.Sure, emotion may come into play - but you can't really control that - other than to put your players in the best position to succeed.I can't believe I let myself get sucked back into this, but it's frustrating to watch folks I assume are intelligent people get this soooo wrong.Knowing you are down three scores instead of two scores at the 7 minute mark is an advantage for the team trailing - because there are situations that they can control and work toward ensuring that they obtain those possessions. They may still fail, but that isn't the point here.The team leading may gain some advantage in knowing that the trailing team MUST score three times in 7 minutes. But that advantage is miniscule compared to the advantage they gain when they know the trailing team must score once more at, say, 1 minute remaining.The trailing team MUST attempt a 2-pt conversion at some point. If you try it early, knowing you almost certainly must try one, it's better to know if you succeed or fail early. If you attempt it late, you have a far, far worse chance of having the time to even obtain that possession. Most likely, if you miss the 2 point conversion late, the game is OVER.Is this really that difficult?If you miss the 2 point conversion early, yes, you are likely to lose. But you have TIME to try and manage things as best you can. If you miss the two-point conversion late - and you've managed the clock the way most people would when driving for a tie, you have little or no time left. So, if you miss the 2 point conversion late, you lose.Think about that for just a moment before you hit reply: if you miss the two point conversion late... you lose. If you miss it early, you will probably lose, but you still have some time, and the advantage of knowing that you actually need that additional score - so you can use your timeouts, call your sideline plays, run the hurry up, not milk the clock trying for a tie and overtime, know that on 4th and 1 at the 25 yard line KNOW you actually NEED the field goal... and the onside kick.These are all benefits that the trailing team gains with the early knowledge. Yes, all of those things are still unlikely to happen, but late knowledge simply means that the game is pretty much over - unless by some miracle you've managed to drive for the 2nd score and PLAN to miss the 2 point conversion.The leading team? Yea, they know that the opposing team is going to probably be passing on every down. They know that the trailing team needs two scores. The alternative? They simply know that the trailing team has lost. Either way, for the most part - down 8 points or 9, they are going to be trying to run down the clock. The gain some small advantage defensively, knowing that the trailing team is already desperate. But the trailing team, knowing that they are desperate, is able to actually PLAY like they are desperate. Rather than being desperate and not even knowing it.

 

[humpback]

If knowledge of how many points are needed is not more advantageous for the trailing team than it is for the leading team, then explain why every college football coach ever always chooses to go second in overtime so that they can have the knowledge of how many points they need.

Not the same thing.

I never said it was the same thing as deciding whether to go for 2 after cutting the lead to 9. I offered college overtime up as an example of information being an advantage. In college, coaches prefer to know exactly how many points they have to score, even if it means the defense likewise knows how many points they have to score. This is a great example of two teams both possessing the exact same information, but benefiting from it unequally. There's absolutely no question that the coach going second has an advantage, despite both coaches being privy to the exact same information.Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage.

Obviously they aren't close to the same set of circumstances, and I never said that information can't be an advantage. What I'm saying is, information isn't necessarily an advantage, and I don't see any obvious advantage to either side by going for 2 at the 7 minute mark. I think the leading team gains just about as much from that information as the trailing team does.All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

IMO, the best way you could support that claim would be if there was a statistically significant sample size of data that showed that there was a decided advantage to the trailing team in going for 2 early vs. late in this situation. It still wouldn't prove that you should automatically go for 2 every time under these circumstances, but at least that would be some evidence.

 

[CalBear]

All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

IMO, the best way you could support that claim would be if there was a statistically significant sample size of data that showed that there was a decided advantage to the trailing team in going for 2 early vs. late in this situation. It still wouldn't prove that you should automatically go for 2 every time under these circumstances, but at least that would be some evidence.

The evidence is in the poll on fourth-and-1 at the 25. Everyone would go for it down 7 or 8. Everyone would kick a FG down 9. But if you're down 8, you don't know that going for it is the right move, because you don't know if you'll make the 2-point conversion or not. So having the information about the success of the 2-point conversion is critical to the trailing team in that situation (and many others).There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Knowing you are down three scores instead of two scores at the 7 minute mark is an advantage for the team trailing - because there are situations that they can control and work toward ensuring that they obtain those possessions. They may still fail, but that isn't the point here.The team leading may gain some advantage in knowing that the trailing team MUST score three times in 7 minutes. But that advantage is miniscule compared to the advantage they gain when they know the trailing team must score once more at, say, 1 minute remaining.

The leading team gains the same "advantage". By knowing the trailing team needs 2 possessions. The leading teams knows that one 1st down practically guarantees them the win. The winning team gains the exact same advantage because their fate will be in their hands as well - they aren't just reacting to the trailing team.What situations can the losing team control that gives them their possessions that the leading team does not have an equivalent strategy?By going for 2 early you make the playcalling easier for both sides - which benefits the winning team more because they have the *huge* advantage of 9 pts.

 

[sn0mm1s]

There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

This is untrue. Down 7 or 8 the winning team is more likely to pass. Up 9 there is a huge incentive to go for 4th and short.

 

[humpback]

All I've heard is basically the same as what you wrote above- "Likewise, even if both coaches gain an equal amount of information when you go for 2 early, the trailing team receives a disproportionately large benefit from that information, resulting in a net advantage." There is nothing here describing "why" this is the case, it's just an opinion.

IMO, the best way you could support that claim would be if there was a statistically significant sample size of data that showed that there was a decided advantage to the trailing team in going for 2 early vs. late in this situation. It still wouldn't prove that you should automatically go for 2 every time under these circumstances, but at least that would be some evidence.

The evidence is in the poll on fourth-and-1 at the 25. Everyone would go for it down 7 or 8. Everyone would kick a FG down 9. But if you're down 8, you don't know that going for it is the right move, because you don't know if you'll make the 2-point conversion or not. So having the information about the success of the 2-point conversion is critical to the trailing team in that situation (and many others).There is not a similar benefit for the leading team; on virtually any fourth down they will punt or kick a field goal, whether they're up by 7, 8, or 9.

4 and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and 1 time out down 7, 8, or 9 is an entirely different set of circumstances than whether or not you should go for 2 with 7 minutes left down by 9, so it's really not applicable. I completely disagree about your second point- there absolutely is a benefit for the leading team in knowing that information as well. I can't believe people are trying to say the leading team would do the same exact thing no matter what the situation. Do you really think they would employ the same exact strategy, on offense, defense, and special teams, and call the same exact plays, no matter if they had a 7, 8, or 9 pt. lead?

 

[toppshelff]

Probably talks to my personality, but you need 16 points to win. That is either 2 2-point TDs, or a missed 2-point conversion TD, a 7-point TD and a FG.

Either way, go for the 2 right up front. If you get the 2, you feel confident going for it again on the 2nd TD.

But I hate overtime and believe you go for the win. Probably why I'm not coaching in the NFL (among a dozen other reasons).

 

[renesauz]

4 and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and 1 time out down 7, 8, or 9 is an entirely different set of circumstances than whether or not you should go for 2 with 7 minutes left down by 9, so it's really not applicable.

I completely disagree about your second point- there absolutely is a benefit for the leading team in knowing that information as well. I can't believe people are trying to say the leading team would do the same exact thing no matter what the situation. Do you really think they would employ the same exact strategy, on offense, defense, and special teams, and call the same exact plays, no matter if they had a 7, 8, or 9 pt. lead?

Actually...it's extraordinarily pertinant! Down 7 or 8, you go for it because there's a great chance you won't get another possession. Down 9, you know you need another possession AND a FG...terrible odds but you probably kick.The odds of the two point conversion haven't changed....so there's an obvious advantage to the trailing team in KNOWING what they need there!

 

[Jersey35]

Ok kick it crew. Honest question: assuming the trailing team gets a final drive down 8 points. How much time do you think is most likely to remain on the clock when they score the TD and go for the tie with the 2 point conversion?

 

[humpback]

4 and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and 1 time out down 7, 8, or 9 is an entirely different set of circumstances than whether or not you should go for 2 with 7 minutes left down by 9, so it's really not applicable.

I completely disagree about your second point- there absolutely is a benefit for the leading team in knowing that information as well. I can't believe people are trying to say the leading team would do the same exact thing no matter what the situation. Do you really think they would employ the same exact strategy, on offense, defense, and special teams, and call the same exact plays, no matter if they had a 7, 8, or 9 pt. lead?

Actually...it's extraordinarily pertinant! Down 7 or 8, you go for it because there's a great chance you won't get another possession. Down 9, you know you need another possession AND a FG...terrible odds but you probably kick.The odds of the two point conversion haven't changed....so there's an obvious advantage to the trailing team in KNOWING what they need there!

I don't know how many times we need to go back and forth here, but WHY is there an obvious advantage to the trailing team there? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Doesn't the leading team also KNOW what they need? Can't they adjust their strategy as well KNOWING what they need? Just knowing something doesn't necessarily give you an advantage, especially when the other side knows the same exact information. Put it this way- when a team lines up to attempt a 2 pt. conversion, both teams KNOW they are attempting it. Does the team going for 2 have the "obvious advantage"?

 

[Jersey35]

4 and 1 at the 25 with 2:30 left and 1 time out down 7, 8, or 9 is an entirely different set of circumstances than whether or not you should go for 2 with 7 minutes left down by 9, so it's really not applicable.

I completely disagree about your second point- there absolutely is a benefit for the leading team in knowing that information as well. I can't believe people are trying to say the leading team would do the same exact thing no matter what the situation. Do you really think they would employ the same exact strategy, on offense, defense, and special teams, and call the same exact plays, no matter if they had a 7, 8, or 9 pt. lead?

Actually...it's extraordinarily pertinant! Down 7 or 8, you go for it because there's a great chance you won't get another possession. Down 9, you know you need another possession AND a FG...terrible odds but you probably kick.The odds of the two point conversion haven't changed....so there's an obvious advantage to the trailing team in KNOWING what they need there!

I don't know how many times we need to go back and forth here, but WHY is there an obvious advantage to the trailing team there? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Doesn't the leading team also KNOW what they need? Can't they adjust their strategy as well KNOWING what they need? Just knowing something doesn't necessarily give you an advantage, especially when the other side knows the same exact information. Put it this way- when a team lines up to attempt a 2 pt. conversion, both teams KNOW they are attempting it. Does the team going for 2 have the "obvious advantage"?

Because knowing they news the additional score means their clock management strategy changes a LOT. The leading team may adjust somewhat, but the basic strategy remains the same: to maintain possession and run down the clock.We aren't saying that the information actually gives the trailing team the upper hand. It simply benefits a little bit more from the information than the leading team - resulting in a net gain in opportunity.

 

[Sam Quentin]

You said the trailing team gains the "advantage" of knowing how many points they need to score. First of all, that isn't an "advantage", it's information. Even if you want to incorrectly call that an advantage, then the leading team has the same exact advantage, which, by definition means there isn't any advantage at all. Do you dispute that there is a very distinct difference between information and an advantage?

What does the leading team do with that info though? Up 9, they go so over-conservative it's an easy stop while the trailing team KNOWS they need two more drives. Up 7 provides no advantage over up 8...no change in how they play. Either way, the trailing team gains something, the leading team gains...nothing.

If the winning team is up 7 or 8 they play as if they were up 7. Which means they don't view running up the middle 3 times the best way to win because the losing team is potentially 1 possession away from tying. If the winning team converts a first down they will continue to try to move the ball. They will most likely add passes into their offensive game. This is good because passes have a higher variance both in yards gained, turnovers, and clock stoppage than runs. This benefits the losing team because the losing team doesn't want average plays - they want high variance plays that will help them get back into the game.If the winning team is up by 9 with 7 minutes then they play knowing that you need 2 possessions. You act as if conservative play is the wrong call here - when it most likely is the right call. Best case scenario (barring a fumble) you lose 2 minutes of clock time meaning you have to make up 9 pts in 5 minutes. The winning team has a *huge* advantage here - especially if their 3 consecutive runs put them anywhere close to converting a 1st down. They know that if they convert the 1st down that the losing team is, for all intents and purposes, done and *they* get to decide this.Being up 9 makes coaching decisions easier on both sides and that will invariably benefit the team that is already winning.I mean, are people really arguing that a hail mary at the end of a game is more likely to succeed in comparison to a deep ball in the middle of the game because the offenses and defenses know what is coming? All the information is right there in front of both teams and coaches. The trailing team has the advantage though right?

If the leading team tries to throw on 3rd and 5, sure, there's maybe a 2% chance they trow a pick, but there's probably a 30% chance they make it - which takes 3 minutes off of the clock and is devasating to your comeboack chances. I don't like those odds (I can make up the 40 or so punt yards in much less than 3 minutes)- I'd rather they run up the gut three times.on the offensive side og the ball