SMU gets 2 pt. Conversion???

[Hodge3323]

Hey guys,

First time poster, long time lurker. Love the site and really appreciate all the contributions.

Figured I?d chime in on this going for 2 debate. I?m sure I?ll be attacked for coming across as a condescending, know it all douche, but I assure you that is not my intention. Having said that, NOT going for 2 in this spot is just objectively wrong. The reason lies in the risk/reward ratio of the play which is based on very basic mathematics. Getting the two point conversion HELPS you more than NOT getting it HURTS you. You gain more being down 6 instead of 7 then you lose being down 8 instead of 7. It?s like flipping a coin and gaining $100 every time it comes heads (getting the two point conversion) and losing $50 every time it comes tails (not getting the two point conversion).

Add in the fact that in this specific case, given how productive SMU offense is, they probably get the two point conversion 55% - 60%. So while it?s a slam dunk play under normal circumstances where you?d expect to get it 50%, it?s even MORE of a slam dunk play in this specific case where the chances of success are clearly better than 50/50. So the fact that SMU?s offense had been very successfully during the course of the game is not the underlying reason why going for 2 here is a no brainer but rather more of just the cherry on top.

So while I?m sure there are thousands of people out there that will go to their grave saying going for 2 is a colossal mistake here, literally the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, and ironically even MORE SO in this specific case. The huge mistake would be NOT going for two. Every time a team is down 14 and scores to cut it to 8 and kicks the extra point, they are making a colossal mistake. I?m sorry but saying SMU going for 2 there is terrible is no different than saying that 2+2=5. (Oh and for what it?s worth I had Memphis -6!)

 

[Old School]

Hodge3323.....:00hour

now that's a hell of a first post...

don't let it be the last............:0003

 

[bosbabiesarm]

Couple of Questions then I?m moving on from this topic.
Georgia was beating Florida 24 to 10 Florida scored why didn?t they go for two why did they kick the extra point.
If SMU?s chances were so great to make the two point conversion why use such a gimmick play to score just line up and run it down their throat?s because it?s a gimme two point conversion According to the analytics:0003:

 

[bosbabiesarm]

And finally the fact that were even discussing this two point conversion because no team down 14 points who scores goes for two proves the point of why you kick.

 

[MadJack]

And finally the fact that were even discussing this two point conversion because no team down 14 points who scores goes for two proves the point of why you kick.

I guess you didn't read the link I posted. The decision was the correct one. That article convinced me.

 

[Hodge3323]

The specific play called chosen doesn?t make the decision to go for 2 any better or, as you are arguing, any worse. The two things are completely irrelevant to each other. If a team chose to go for it in an obvious situation where you have to go for it and ran a gimmick play, would you then argue that the decision to go for it was incorrect?

Florida should have absolutely gone for 2 there...almost the identical situation as in the SMU game. Why would you assume that because they chose to kick the extra post that that was the correct decision? The fact that Dan Mullen, as well as almost every coach in that spot, kicks the extra point there does not serve as evidence that it?s the correct play to do so. Serves as evidence that 99.99999% of coaches are stuck in their ways.

 

[Hodge3323]

Also I?m not sure where you?re coming up with the fact that the ?analytics are saying it?s a gimme conversion?. The analytics are not saying that in the slightest. The analytics are saying that if you assume you make the 2 point conversion about half the time then it?s a no brainer to go for 2 and choosing to kick the extra point is awful.

 

[bosbabiesarm]

I?m like 99.9999%
It?s a 50/50 play
Why use a gimmick play up that you may need to win a game

And because they made that one doesn?t make it right.
Still need another TD

 

[Hodge3323]

Why are you so hung up on what play they chose to run? Like I said, that has nothing to do with whether choosing to go for 2 or not was the correct decision.

To your other point, what also has zero to do with whether it was a good decision or not is whether the two point conversion was successful or not. I?d be saying the exact same thing about all of this if the two point conversion failed miserably.

 

[bosbabiesarm]

Yea you?re right.
Jack I can?t get links to play for some reason

Analytics are not the be all. The way game is playing out has more to do with a decision.
They play call means everything. Because again why waste that play when it doesn?t bring u victory
That play brings your chances from 50:50 to 90:10

 

[boomer1]

Hey guys,

First time poster, long time lurker. Love the site and really appreciate all the contributions.

Figured I?d chime in on this going for 2 debate. I?m sure I?ll be attacked for coming across as a condescending, know it all douche, but I assure you that is not my intention. Having said that, NOT going for 2 in this spot is just objectively wrong. The reason lies in the risk/reward ratio of the play which is based on very basic mathematics. Getting the two point conversion HELPS you more than NOT getting it HURTS you. You gain more being down 6 instead of 7 then you lose being down 8 instead of 7. It?s like flipping a coin and gaining $100 every time it comes heads (getting the two point conversion) and losing $50 every time it comes tails (not getting the two point conversion).

Add in the fact that in this specific case, given how productive SMU offense is, they probably get the two point conversion 55% - 60%. So while it?s a slam dunk play under normal circumstances where you?d expect to get it 50%, it?s even MORE of a slam dunk play in this specific case where the chances of success are clearly better than 50/50. So the fact that SMU?s offense had been very successfully during the course of the game is not the underlying reason why going for 2 here is a no brainer but rather more of just the cherry on top.

So while I?m sure there are thousands of people out there that will go to their grave saying going for 2 is a colossal mistake here, literally the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, and ironically even MORE SO in this specific case. The huge mistake would be NOT going for two. Every time a team is down 14 and scores to cut it to 8 and kicks the extra point, they are making a colossal mistake. I?m sorry but saying SMU going for 2 there is terrible is no different than saying that 2+2=5. (Oh and for what it?s worth I had Memphis -6!)

I agree. If you are trying to avoid overtime and win in regulation going for two gives you two chances at it. If you make it the first time you only need an extra point on the second score to win. And if you don?t convert you still have a chance to tie with the two point conv on the second TD.

 

[travelguy1968]

I agree. If you are trying to avoid overtime and win in regulation going for two gives you two chances at it. If you make it the first time you only need an extra point on the second score to win. And if you don?t convert you still have a chance to tie with the two point conv on the second TD.

Yes, unfortunately those that had Memphis -6.5 are going to be frustrated with what SMU did. I am not sure what the right answer is on it, going for 2 still gave SMU a chance if they failed the 2 point conversion. and as others have said, SMU is for real. That rookie wide receiver was just fantastic #11. SMU defense was terrible. If there defense could make one stop they would have won. I never get backdoor covers having SMU at +6.5 so this felt good, but I felt terrible for the team to lose like this and for those bettors who had Memphis at 6.5. Those that had Memphis at 5.5 before the line change no impact.