And I thought Moorhead is bad

[msstate7]

Pat shurmur (Giants HC) just went for 2 down 8 with about 4 mins to go. Unsuccessful

[Commercecomet24]

Lol yep and then this fiasco at the goal line. Wow

[Homedawg]

Pat shurmur (Giants HC) just went for 2 down 8 with about 4 mins to go. Unsuccessful

Had to love his defense of going for it. Something like, well if you make it, then we have a 50% greater chance to win if we score again. HAHAHA. NO crap? WHy not kick the pat, like 99% of people w a brain, and then, IF you score and decide to go for the win, well so be it. Instead, he looks like and idiot and then defends it w a greater chance to win. LOL

[dantheman4248]

... that was absolutely the correct call. I would hope Moorhead would employ a strategy like that. Football coaches are finally becoming analytical with the 2-point and going for it.


Assume on the low end a 40% conversion rate for 2 point conversions. And also assume XP is 100%. Then for simplicity let’s assume the win / loss in OT is 50/50 (ignoring tying here.)

Given you score two TDs. Kicking two XPs with them gives you 50% win chance, 50% loss chance in OT.

Going for Two on the first:

Convert: 40% Chance win.
Don’t convert 1st: 60% Chance
Convert 2nd after failing first: 40%*60%=24%. Then you have to play for OT. : so half that. 12% win, 12% loss.
Fail both: 60%*60%=36%. Loss

So that means going for it on first gives you a 52% chance to win and a 48% chance to lose. Versus 50% / 50%. And that’s with ONLY 40% Chance of success. NFL teams convert at a higher rate (somewhere around 52-54%). And XP’s are not 100%.

Shurmur made the right call.

[msstate7]

How does not converting 1st 2-point conversion = 60% you get the 2nd one?

[Homedawg]

... that was absolutely the correct call. I would hope Moorhead would employ a strategy like that. Football coaches are finally becoming analytical with the 2-point and going for it.


Assume on the low end a 40% conversion rate for 2 point conversions. And also assume XP is 100%. Then for simplicity let’s assume the win / loss in OT is 50/50 (ignoring tying here.)

Given you score two TDs. Kicking two XPs with them gives you 50% win chance, 50% loss chance in OT.

Going for Two on the first:

Convert: 40% Chance win.
Don’t convert 1st: 60% Chance
Convert 2nd after failing first: 40%*60%=24%. Then you have to play for OT. : so half that. 12% win, 12% loss.
Fail both: 60%*60%=36%. Loss

So that means going for it on first gives you a 52% chance to win and a 48% chance to lose. Versus 50% / 50%. And that’s with ONLY 40% Chance of success. NFL teams convert at a higher rate (somewhere around 52-54%). And XP’s are not 100%.

Shurmur made the right call.

No no he didn't. You make it a 7 pt game. Then if you want to go for two for the in do so. But ok you are right, he made the right call, good thing for giants fans is he and you won't be their head coach for long. But I did like the additional comment from him," hey we had a great play called, you guys saw it almost worked!" He'll I can draw up a play on paper that a group of 8 year olds can score against the 85 bears. Unfortunately the game doesn't work like that. But, for you and your analytic peeps, who also say go for it on fourth down, do that from your own 1 every time and see how that works out.

[ckDOG]

... that was absolutely the correct call. I would hope Moorhead would employ a strategy like that. Football coaches are finally becoming analytical with the 2-point and going for it.


Assume on the low end a 40% conversion rate for 2 point conversions. And also assume XP is 100%. Then for simplicity let?s assume the win / loss in OT is 50/50 (ignoring tying here.)

Given you score two TDs. Kicking two XPs with them gives you 50% win chance, 50% loss chance in OT.

Going for Two on the first:

Convert: 40% Chance win.
Don?t convert 1st: 60% Chance
Convert 2nd after failing first: 40%*60%=24%. Then you have to play for OT. : so half that. 12% win, 12% loss.
Fail both: 60%*60%=36%. Loss

So that means going for it on first gives you a 52% chance to win and a 48% chance to lose. Versus 50% / 50%. And that?s with ONLY 40% Chance of success. NFL teams convert at a higher rate (somewhere around 52-54%). And XP?s are not 100%.

Shurmur made the right call.

Your math is all sorts of ****ed up. If a 2pt conversion has a 40% success rate, which you have assumed, and a 2pt conversion must be successful for a regular time win, then you can't possibly have greater than 50% odds in your scenario.

[msstate7]

Delete

[dantheman4248]

I thought I put it simple. Here.

2pt Chance: 40%
XP Chance: 100%
OT Outcome: 50% Win, 50% Loss

Given you score two TDs
40% Convert 1st: Win 100%. Total % of outcome is 40%.
60% Fail 1st: Now you have to split into two branches.
—Convert 2nd: 40% chance of 60%. That is 24%. This sends it to OT. 50/50 win. So 12% Win. 12% Loss.
—Fail 2nd: 60% chance of 60%. That is 36%. This is fully Loss %.

So we have:

40% win.
12% OT win.
12% OT loss.
36% loss.

That’s 52% Win. 48% Loss. 52>50.


And remember, this is on the low end. 2-point conversions are around 52-54% anyways. You should almost always go for 2 instead of 1. But this one is just too clear of math.

[Commercecomet24]

I thought I put it simple. Here.

2pt Chance: 40%
XP Chance: 100%
OT Outcome: 50% Win, 50% Loss

Given you score two TDs
40% Convert 1st: Win 100%. Total % of outcome is 40%.
60% Fail 1st: Now you have to split into two branches.
—Convert 2nd: 40% chance of 60%. That is 24%. This sends it to OT. 50/50 win. So 12% Win. 12% Loss.
—Fail 2nd: 60% chance of 60%. That is 36%. This is fully Loss %.

So we have:

40% win.
12% OT win.
12% OT loss.
36% loss.

That’s 52% Win. 48% Loss. 52>50.


And remember, this is on the low end. 2-point conversions are around 52-54% anyways. You should almost always go for 2 instead of 1. But this one is just too clear of math.

Did you get that formula from that spaceship that crashed at Roswell? ***

[tireddawg]

... that was absolutely the correct call. I would hope Moorhead would employ a strategy like that. Football coaches are finally becoming analytical with the 2-point and going for it.


Assume on the low end a 40% conversion rate for 2 point conversions. And also assume XP is 100%. Then for simplicity let’s assume the win / loss in OT is 50/50 (ignoring tying here.)

Given you score two TDs. Kicking two XPs with them gives you 50% win chance, 50% loss chance in OT.

Going for Two on the first:

Convert: 40% Chance win.
Don’t convert 1st: 60% Chance
Convert 2nd after failing first: 40%*60%=24%. Then you have to play for OT. : so half that. 12% win, 12% loss.
Fail both: 60%*60%=36%. Loss

So that means going for it on first gives you a 52% chance to win and a 48% chance to lose. Versus 50% / 50%. And that’s with ONLY 40% Chance of success. NFL teams convert at a higher rate (somewhere around 52-54%). And XP’s are not 100%.

Shurmur made the right call.

Ok

[dantheman4248]

Did you get that formula from that spaceship that crashed at Roswell? ***

No I got it from our engineering department. Seems some people here have some Ole Myth education going on.

[Homedawg]

No I got it from our engineering department. Seems some people here have some Ole Myth education going on.

Engineers deal in probability of success of hundreds of thousands of tries, works great for poker. But what it doesn't factor in is time left in game/ offense vs defense/ and many other factors. Math wise if you have a 52 % chance to win a poker hand you should call. Reality wise is, if it means you lose your house and family you fold. In this case you and the dipshit for the giants lost your house.

[msstate7]

I see what you're saying now, but not sure I agree with it still. For instance, I was at the saints-falcons game this year and it was tied late. The falcons punted the ball with around :30 left from their 43-47 yard line. Had the saints had a 1-pt lead, the falcons wouldn't have punted on 4th and 4 there. They would've gone for and perhaps ended up winning in regulation.

[deadheaddawg]

People throw out those probablity stats, but it's a little misleading

You can't just say something general like "teams have a 40% chance on 2 point conversions"

Does State have the same chance of converting a 2pt conversion as Bama? No. Not even close.

So if we are using averages teams like State, would be way below and bama way above.

So offense personal is important and so is defensive.

Does anyone here think State would convert 4 out of 10 conversions against LSU last Saturday?

Of course not.

[Homedawg]

People throw out those probablity stats, but it's a little misleading

You can't just say something general like "teams have a 40% chance on 2 point conversions"

Does State have the same chance of converting a 2pt conversion as Bama? No. Not even close.

So if we are using averages teams like State, would be way below and bama way above.

So offense personal is important and so is defensive.

Does anyone here think State would convert 4 out of 10 conversions against LSU last Saturday?

Of course not.

Again, this isn't a poker hand. Of course not. Spot on

[dantheman4248]

Of course you account all those other factors in.

Like the fact that the giants wouldn’t be expected to win straight up in OT. You account for ties. Etc.

I did simple math to explain why it’s a simple decision to go for 2. You start scratching deeper, you see that the Giants are definitely a team that has higher than a 50% chance on 2-pt conversions. And the Falcons are a team that definitely gives up higher than 50% on two-points. (You don’t need 4-second blocking for 2-point conversions. You have Saquon, Odell, Shepard, and co. You absolutely have the ability to score.)


I said general terms to explain the basis of thought where you begin to see that hey, this is an idea to pursue. Adding in other factors is a must, but on this message board, for people who can’t grasp 5th grade multiplication and percentage... I wasn’t bothering with that.

[Commercecomet24]

I have found from practical application your best chance to win(especially when playing from behind) is to extend the game and thereby extend your chances of winning. That means kicking the XP on the first td and reducing the lead to 7. By failing on the 2 point you just reduced your chances to even tie the game much less win it. I love agressiveness but not stupidity.

[dantheman4248]

I have found from practical application your best chance to win(especially when playing from behind) is to extend the game and thereby extend your chances of winning. That means kicking the XP on the first td and reducing the lead to 7. By failing on the 2 point you just reduced your chances to even tie the game much less win it. I love agressiveness but not stupidity.

All depends on the scenario.

Here?s another fun one to show ya.

Say it?s MSU-Bama

Realistically:
2-pt success is probably 25% for State
OT success is probably 30% for State


(I?m honestly being generous for OT and disgenuous for 2-point. Well, maybe not that disgenous.)

Convert: 25% Win
Fail: 75%*25%*30% to win in OT, the rest is all loss. .75*.25*.3 = .056. Or 5.6%. So 30.6% win. You go for it.


If you ever believe you are more likely to convert a Two than win in OT, you absolutely go for it.

The problem with the whole ?bet the house? analogy is that I wouldn?t bet it if I didn?t have to. But you HAVE to choose an outcome. So I take the best bet.

[ckDOG]

I thought I put it simple. Here.

2pt Chance: 40%
XP Chance: 100%
OT Outcome: 50% Win, 50% Loss

Given you score two TDs
40% Convert 1st: Win 100%. Total % of outcome is 40%.
60% Fail 1st: Now you have to split into two branches.
?Convert 2nd: 40% chance of 60%. That is 24%. This sends it to OT. 50/50 win. So 12% Win. 12% Loss.
?Fail 2nd: 60% chance of 60%. That is 36%. This is fully Loss %.

So we have:

40% win.
12% OT win.
12% OT loss.
36% loss.

That?s 52% Win. 48% Loss. 52>50.


And remember, this is on the low end. 2-point conversions are around 52-54% anyways. You should almost always go for 2 instead of 1. But this one is just too clear of math.

Yes yes. This is good math. Brain fart and my bad.

I'd like to see more 2 pt conversions bc the xp fail rate is getting high enough where the long term math doesn't give one method or the other an advantage. Would be exciting to see more 2 pt conversions even if it isn't significant enough to impact long term outcomes.

[Todd4State]

I thought I put it simple. Here.

2pt Chance: 40%
XP Chance: 100%
OT Outcome: 50% Win, 50% Loss

Given you score two TDs
40% Convert 1st: Win 100%. Total % of outcome is 40%.
60% Fail 1st: Now you have to split into two branches.
—Convert 2nd: 40% chance of 60%. That is 24%. This sends it to OT. 50/50 win. So 12% Win. 12% Loss.
—Fail 2nd: 60% chance of 60%. That is 36%. This is fully Loss %.

So we have:

40% win.
12% OT win.
12% OT loss.
36% loss.

That’s 52% Win. 48% Loss. 52>50.


And remember, this is on the low end. 2-point conversions are around 52-54% anyways. You should almost always go for 2 instead of 1. But this one is just too clear of math.

Are you saying that you have a 100% chance of making an extra point?

[dantheman4248]

Are you saying that you have a 100% chance of making an extra point?

It’s an assumption... this is just to teach people the math. These are definitely not realistic values indicative of any team.

[msstate7]

I think there was fallout from the giants attempting that 2-pt. When the falcons got the ball back, they attempted and made a 56-yard fg. This was the kicker's first game as a falcon. Does Quinn attempt that fg if the lead is 7 rather than 8? At 8, he has no chance of losing in regulation, therefore he can roll the dice. If the lead is 7, a 2-pt conversion can beat him... this probably (who knows for sure) makes him more conservative

[Commercecomet24]

I think there was fallout from the giants attempting that 2-pt. When the falcons got the ball back, they attempted and made a 56-yard fg. This was the kicker's first game as a falcon. Does Quinn attempt that fg if the lead is 7 rather than 8? At 8, he has no chance of losing in regulation, therefore he can roll the dice. If the lead is 7, a 2-pt conversion can beat him... this probably (who knows for sure) makes him more conservative

This is what I mean by extending the game. When you do everything you can to extend then you give your team multiple chances to win. You're not banking everything on a 2 point conversion. I understand the math but there's no way it takes into account every single variable

[Dawg61]

It’s an assumption... this is just to teach people the math. These are definitely not realistic values indicative of any team.

If you wanna teach people the math perhaps you can teach us how missing both two point conversions equals a 36% of a loss? Seems to me that'd be a 100% chance of a loss since you just lost. I'm no math doctor though.

[dantheman4248]

If you wanna teach people the math perhaps you can teach us how missing both two point conversions equals a 36% of a loss? Seems to me that'd be a 100% chance of a loss since you just lost. I'm no math doctor though.

“That is 36%. This is fully Loss %”

That outcome has 36% of happening. 100% of the times it happens, is a loss.

I know we’re fans / alumni / students of a school in Mississippi, but please don’t prove the stereotype that we can’t read.