blacklistedbully
09-07-2014, 11:24 AM
Though NCAA 2-point conversion attempts have been accurate approximately 41% of the time the past decade or so, over the past 20 years for all teams, when rushing for it, the success rate has been around 60% (according to an article in the DC Times).
When one figures the "payout" of going for 2 versus 1, it becomes quite clear that, even if the conversion rate were as low as 45%, a team would be better off going for 2 unless their success rate at converting kicks is better than 90%. For most teams that is the case. For ours so far this year, it is not.
If the success rate of converting 2-point attempts reaches 50%, it equals the payout a team would get if they convert 100% of their kicks.
Right now, our conversion rate on 1-point kicks is .857, and I think we can all agree it's really uglier than that, with several of our "successful" attempts being far from routine, perhaps inches from being unsuccessful, barely sliding inside the goalposts. If we assume the kicking remains largely unimproved (is there any reason to expect otherwise?), I'd argue we can expect the conversion rate to go down, not up.
So, those teams that have a nearly perfect 1-point conversion rate on kicks should continue that way, except in certain circumstances. But for us, if we are in a position where our rate of success converting a 2-pointer exceeds 50% of our rate of success on kicking, we should just leave the damn kickers on the bench and go for 2.
In such a case, the only time we should kick for the xpt is in a game situation where the 1 extra point secures the win, such as when the 1 point breaks a tie at the end of a game, and only then if our actual odds of converting are greater than our odds of converting a 2-point attempt.
It really boils down to this:
Do you think our team, with Dak at QB & JRob in the backfield is more likely to convert at least 1/2 as often as our kickers? If the answer is, "Yes", then leave Sobiesk/Graves/Bell on the bench. Right now, Dak & Co would need to convert 43% of the time to exceed our kickers, "expected value" based on current conversion success rate. But again, I think we're fortunate it's as high as it is, given how narrowly we converted all but one of our xpt's yesterday. Let's say that one that hit the post and went in, went out instead. In that case our xpt conversion success rate would drop to 78.5%, meaning Dak & Co would only need to be successful 39.25% of the time to exceed "expected value". Now imagine any more of those, "good by inches" had gone out. If nothing else, it's certainly a real possibility with our kickers going forward.
In summary, the highest NCAA FBS 2-point conversion success rate overall in recent years was 45.7 in 2005. Last year it was just over 40% But that is for all teams, so for our analysis we'd have to consider whether our expected conversion rate would likely be higher than the average, particularly if we made it a point-of-emphasis for our team. Personally, my confidence in gaining those 3 needed yards, especially if we ran a diamond-formation with Dak, Jrob, Shump/Griffin & Lewis (I like Lewis as a way to add to a defense's need to prepare for a wide sweep), is much, much greater than 50% of what I expect from our kickers.
What say you?
When one figures the "payout" of going for 2 versus 1, it becomes quite clear that, even if the conversion rate were as low as 45%, a team would be better off going for 2 unless their success rate at converting kicks is better than 90%. For most teams that is the case. For ours so far this year, it is not.
If the success rate of converting 2-point attempts reaches 50%, it equals the payout a team would get if they convert 100% of their kicks.
Right now, our conversion rate on 1-point kicks is .857, and I think we can all agree it's really uglier than that, with several of our "successful" attempts being far from routine, perhaps inches from being unsuccessful, barely sliding inside the goalposts. If we assume the kicking remains largely unimproved (is there any reason to expect otherwise?), I'd argue we can expect the conversion rate to go down, not up.
So, those teams that have a nearly perfect 1-point conversion rate on kicks should continue that way, except in certain circumstances. But for us, if we are in a position where our rate of success converting a 2-pointer exceeds 50% of our rate of success on kicking, we should just leave the damn kickers on the bench and go for 2.
In such a case, the only time we should kick for the xpt is in a game situation where the 1 extra point secures the win, such as when the 1 point breaks a tie at the end of a game, and only then if our actual odds of converting are greater than our odds of converting a 2-point attempt.
It really boils down to this:
Do you think our team, with Dak at QB & JRob in the backfield is more likely to convert at least 1/2 as often as our kickers? If the answer is, "Yes", then leave Sobiesk/Graves/Bell on the bench. Right now, Dak & Co would need to convert 43% of the time to exceed our kickers, "expected value" based on current conversion success rate. But again, I think we're fortunate it's as high as it is, given how narrowly we converted all but one of our xpt's yesterday. Let's say that one that hit the post and went in, went out instead. In that case our xpt conversion success rate would drop to 78.5%, meaning Dak & Co would only need to be successful 39.25% of the time to exceed "expected value". Now imagine any more of those, "good by inches" had gone out. If nothing else, it's certainly a real possibility with our kickers going forward.
In summary, the highest NCAA FBS 2-point conversion success rate overall in recent years was 45.7 in 2005. Last year it was just over 40% But that is for all teams, so for our analysis we'd have to consider whether our expected conversion rate would likely be higher than the average, particularly if we made it a point-of-emphasis for our team. Personally, my confidence in gaining those 3 needed yards, especially if we ran a diamond-formation with Dak, Jrob, Shump/Griffin & Lewis (I like Lewis as a way to add to a defense's need to prepare for a wide sweep), is much, much greater than 50% of what I expect from our kickers.
What say you?