2 point conversion

[Tear Down This Wall]

Behind 36-21.

Scored TD, 36-27. Behind by nine.

Kick an extra point, 36-28 - a one possession game, 6+ minutes left in the game.

Easy right?






I guess not.

[Eielson]

We had to have a 2 point conversion either way.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Yes, but if we miss it, we are two scores behind. If we kick the extra point, we are only one score behind.

And, there was plenty of time left in the game.

[MNsooner]

We had to have a 2 point conversion either way.

And we knew by not getting it that we needed two scores so we could play call accordingly.

[tulsaoilerfan]

It's a great call if it works, not so great since it didn't work; i was listening on the radio and they sure didn't agree with it

[MyT Oklahoma]

I would have preferred to wait until it mattered as in going for two when it counted. Same thing for the onside kick call. But then I also wouldn't have let Stevens' gone for that field goal as opposed to going for the first down.

We were at least two touchdowns better than Mizzou but the execution by our players was far worse than the coaching tonight.

P.S. We will see them again in Dallas.

[webfoot]

Behind 36-21.

Scored TD, 36-27. Behind by nine.

Kick an extra point, 36-28 - a one possession game, 6+ minutes left in the game.

Easy right?






I guess not.

Completely agree - worst decision of the game. The correct call is to kick the PAT, kick it deep (with 6+ minutes left) and play a little D.

[snuballer7]

Didn't even know there was a decision to be made. You kick the PAT and then take your chances with an 8 point TD later. We had the ball back with plenty of time, but being down 9 made it a irrelevant. No clue what they were thinking!

[SOONER44EVER]

It was a bone headed call. Stoops was dead wrong. There...............somebody said it.

[soonercastor]

isn't the rule "go for 2 when u HAVE to"? With six minutes left you make it a one possession game and put some pressure on their offense

[Dwight]

Yeah, that was a TERRIBLE call. Definitely changed the game.

[SOONER44EVER]

Les Miles called Stoops and gave him some game management advice.

[sooner518]

i would rather know earlier rather than later that I need an additional score. ie, if we go for 2 earlier, and dont get it, there is still 6 + minutes to get try and make it up.

if you kick the PAT, then score a TD with like a minute to go, and dont get the 2, then you have no time to make it up.

i kinda like the call. it logically makes sense to me although the other option might give a little bit more hope. but all things being the same, I'd prefer to know earlier.

[cyclonesooner]

Great call BIG GAME BOB ! Even worse than the onside attempt against West Virginia ! How about giving us a chance to win ? No way you go for two there. Any 7th grade coach could make that call. What a joke !

[cyclonesooner]

Any truth to the rumor that BIG GAME BOB is Wade Phillips nephew ?

[Sooner Schemer]

If you're going to go for 2 there, why not line up for a PAT and run a fake?

[sooner94]

Here is why the 2-point covnersion call was wrong, and you can't argue with this.

John Blake did the exact same thing against Colorado in 1998 late in Q4.

[cyclonesooner]

You go for two on your next td score. He probably didn't trust his kicker to kick the pat. (sarcasm)

[SOONER44EVER]

Here is why the 2-point covnersion call was wrong, and you can't argue with this.

John Blake did the exact same thing against Colorado in 1998 late in Q4.

Yikes!:eek:

[there there]

The commentators don't agree but I think it was the right call. I don't think you can argue logically that it was the wrong thing to do.

We can all agree that if we didn't go for 2 then we would have the next time. It gives you more hope if you wait to do it but it doesn't increase the odds of success at all. As sooner518 pointed out, it is better the earlier you know whether you got it.

I think the debate here is between logic and hope. You have hope longer if you wait to do it, but logically it doesn't help you any. Stoops could have taken the easy way out by waiting and no one would criticize it, but I think he made the right decision.

[sooner94]

Yikes!:eek:

Yeah, down 15 against the Buffs, we get a TD. Blake goes for 2 and we don't get it. I almost **** myself when I saw us lined up for 2 tongiht.

I'm a little worried about our coaching staff. I love Stoops, but really don't understand why the coaching is so bad in the fourth quarter.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Better to know what earlier? Whether you are two possessions behind or still two possessions behind?

As Barry Switzer used to say, play the percentages. The right call is to kick the PAT and make it a one possession game when you have more than six minutes left in the game.

As someone else said before...shades of the weird decisions made in the bowl game against West Virginia.

[Eielson]

isn't the rule "go for 2 when u HAVE to"? With six minutes left you make it a one possession game and put some pressure on their offense

Nope. That's definitely not a rule.

[cyclonesooner]

No way it was the right call. Looking for positives at that point.

[SOONER44EVER]

Yeah, down 15 against the Buffs, we get a TD. Blake goes for 2 and we don't get it. I almost **** myself when I saw us lined up for 2 tongiht.

I'm a little worried about our coaching staff. I love Stoops, but really don't understand why the coaching is so bad in the fourth quarter.

Well he coaches pretty good when we're up 40. Its just in the big games when he actually has to make decisions that he seems to have problems.

[Crucifax Autumn]

*yawn*

[SOONER44EVER]

*yawn*

Sleepy?

[GottaHavePride]

I think it's the right call. Say you kick the PAT with 6 minutes left. Kick off, give Mizzou a nice clock-eating drive, get the ball back, score a TD, and fail on the 2-pt with no time left to score again.

At that point you say "****, if I had done the 2-pt the FIRST time, I would have still had time to try to come up with an extra FG."

[LRoss]

I've always agreed with There There and GottaHavePride.

The only way it's better to wait is if there's some reason that there's a better chance that you make the 2 pts. later rather than earlier. Is there? Not that I can find. So if it's going to work, no diffference. If not, then you know with 6 minutes left that you're going to need 2 scores and can play accordingly rather than playing for one more score, failing on the 2 pt play and then your whole wad is blown.

I know it's not "conventional wisdom" and so especially when the play didn't work Stoops has left himself open to criticism. But I think "conventional wisdom," in this case, is wrong.

[OKC-SLC]

... and play a little D.

aye, there's the rub.

[GKeeper316]

Completely agree - worst decision of the game. The correct call is to kick the PAT, kick it deep (with 6+ minutes left) and play a little D.

we didnt kick the ball deep all night, and our d was non-existent in the 4th quarter...

[stoops the eternal pimp]

3 and outs at the speed of light don't help the defense

[Curly Bill]

Without even reading the thread and what others have said, I'm gonna say: Yep, it was a dumas decision.

[SOONER44EVER]

You play to keep yourself in the game as long as possible. When we didn't get the 2 pointer the game was virtually over. Stoops admitted it by punting later. He made 2 mistakes there. Plain and simple.

[Crucifax Autumn]

LOL

[Curly Bill]

You play to keep yourself in the game as long as possible. When we didn't get the 2 pointer the game was virtually over. Stoops admitted it by punting later. He made 2 mistakes there. Plain and simple.

True, but I'd argue it wasn't just virtually over, but that we'd officially been forked.

[webfoot]

i would rather know earlier rather than later that I need an additional score. ie, if we go for 2 earlier, and dont get it, there is still 6 + minutes to get try and make it up.

if you kick the PAT, then score a TD with like a minute to go, and dont get the 2, then you have no time to make it up.

i kinda like the call. it logically makes sense to me although the other option might give a little bit more hope. but all things being the same, I'd prefer to know earlier.

That's all well and good except for the fact that the next time you score and make the 2 point conversion you are still down by a point (and no time to make it up) which isn't much help unless you are just trying to lose by less and not actually win.

[SOONER44EVER]

True, but I'd argue it wasn't just virtually over, but that we'd officially been forked.

Yes, officially.

[OUstud]

I think it's the right call. Say you kick the PAT with 6 minutes left. Kick off, give Mizzou a nice clock-eating drive, get the ball back, score a TD, and fail on the 2-pt with no time left to score again.

At that point you say "****, if I had done the 2-pt the FIRST time, I would have still had time to try to come up with an extra FG."

Or, with what we did, say we get the ball back after a clock-eating drive by Mizzou, and score a TD. Then we're still down 3 with the PAT pending. In terms of possessions there's no difference between trailing by 15 and trailing by 9.

[nighttrain12]

Behind 36-21.
Scored TD, 36-27. Behind by nine.
Kick an extra point, 36-28 - a one possession game, 6+ minutes left in the game.
Easy right?
I guess not.

Didn't John Blake do the same thing and tried to justify it after the game?

I wonder if Stoops had decided this isn't going well. If we cut it to 7 and score another TD, we are going for 2 again to win the game.

[Boarder]

Just catch the effing two point conversion pass. Conversation over.

[Blue]

Horrible call. It completely deflated the team when it failed.

I love stoops but damn, that was the worst call I've seen our staff make. It made no sense whatsoever.

[SOONER44EVER]

Horrible call. It completely deflated the team when it failed.

I love stoops but damn, that was the worst call I've seen our staff make. It made no sense whatsoever.

The punt a few minutes later wasn't the best either.

[looch]

I didn't want to read ANYTHING on the internet about this game but I did have to come here to find out what happened with this play call.

Just like taking defense if you win the coin toss in OT, it is basic coaching; it's not debateable. In this case you kick the extra point and go for two later.

No one has given a good reason why we went for two early. There has to be a "special" consideration.

Did we not trust our kicking that much? Was there a no fail goal line play we had practiced well?

[soonercastor]

No one has given a good reason why we went for two early. There has to be a "special" consideration.


well most likely reasons are:

1) the play called was our go-to play that probably works all the time in practice and the coaches were confident we would get it

2) If we miss then we potentially have time for two more possessions instead of laying it all down on one play at the end of the game.

I think that's why we went for it there, but I don't agree with it because if we make it a one possession game we put pressure on their offense.

But w/e, I trust the coaches to fix what's wrong and to absolutely destroy Colorado this week :pop:

[Eielson]

So the argument here is that we should've kicked the extra point just so we could "stay in the game longer?" I personally don't care how long we stayed in the game if we weren't going to win.

[mightysooner]

Horrible call.....absolutely....horrible. You kick that extra point when there is 6 minutes left in the game so you can kick it deep and try to get the ball back. When we missed that 2 point conversion, the players already knew we'd lost because that forced us into position of having to recover TWO onside kicks which is LOW percentage odds. Bob deserves lots of criticism for that.

[Sooner_Tuf]

The way were playing on both sides of the ball it made no difference.

The decision was the right one because it gave the team the chance to win in regulation time.

A better FG Kicker, don't turn the ball over, and some run defense and we win easily. We should have had this game in pocket in the first half.

Missouri played much better than we did and deserved the win. The two point conversion attempt did not deflate the Sooners. The Mizzou Defense did.

[looch]

the players already knew we'd lost because that forced us into position of having to recover TWO onside kicks which is LOW percentage odds. Bob deserves lots of criticism for that.

Regardless of the board rules I sincerely refrain from criticizing players and coaches. Everything points to really poor coaching on this call. It's *seems* very basic and that's why I'm curious if there's more to the story. I know our state's highest paid employee doesn't make mistakes a 7th grade coach wouldn't make.

I'm really curious if we don't trust our kicker THAT much, if we had a "fail safe" play or who had a "feeling"...

[jumperstop]

The way were playing on both sides of the ball it made no difference.

The decision was the right one because it gave the team the chance to win in regulation time.

A better FG Kicker, don't turn the ball over, and some run defense and we win easily. We should have had this game in pocket in the first half.

Missouri played much better than we did and deserved the win. The two point conversion attempt did not deflate the Sooners. The Mizzou Defense did.

Win in regulation? We were down by 15 if you don't remember. I mean I guess we could have won in regulation if we did two two point conversions. But they would have gone for the tie on the second td.

[mightysooner]

Regardless of the board rules I sincerely refrain from criticizing players and coaches. Everything points to really poor coaching on this call. It's *seems* very basic and that's why I'm curious if there's more to the story. I know our state's highest paid employee doesn't make mistakes a 7th grade coach wouldn't make.

I'm really curious if we don't trust our kicker THAT much, if we had a "fail safe" play or who had a "feeling"...

We haven't had many issues with PAT's this year so it wasn't a "kicker trust issue". It was clearly incompetent game management. There was plenty of time left in the game to get the ball back with 6:10 left. You kick the PAT, kick the ball deep, try to get a three-n-out and get back to business on offense. Save the two point try for the final drive if you get the ball back. Forcing yourself into an onside kick situation (low yield success percentage) and giving Missouri good field position with 6:10 left, decided the game both on the field, and in the minds of our own players. Worst call Stoops has ever made, and yes he deserve criticism for it.

[webfoot]

At some point I'm expecting this to evolve into getting rid of the kicker and holder and go for 2 after every TD. OU can save the 'ships' for someone else.

[stoopified]

We had to have a 2 point conversion either way.Bingo,I don't really WTF all the fuss is about.

[Blue]

Bingo,I don't really WTF all the fuss is about.

Bc if you make the pat it puts all the pressure on mizzou bc its a one score game. It completely changes the dynamics and playcalling. They get conservative, we force a punt, and we go down and try to get 8. After we missed it, everybody knew it was over.

[nighttrain12]

well most likely reasons are:

1) the play called was our go-to play that probably works all the time in practice and the coaches were confident we would get it

2) If we miss then we potentially have time for two more possessions instead of laying it all down on one play at the end of the game.



The odds are better though to lay it all on the line on one final play at the end of the game vs. instead of trying to score twice in 6 minutes (-4 minutes Mizzou has the ball on 2 possessions).

[soonerbub]

SCORING SUMMARY


1ST QTR: OKLA - TD, DEMOND PARKER 11 YD RUN (PAT FAILED), 6:53
2ND QTR: COL - TD, DARRIN CHIAVERINI 20 YD PASS FROM MIKE
MOSCHETTI (JEREMY ALDRICH KICK), 4:49
COL - TD, MARCQUES SPIVEY 6 YD PASS FROM MIKE MOSCHETTI
(JEREMY ALDRICH KICK), 6:50
OKLA - FG, MATT REEVES 37 YD, 9:38
3RD QTR: OKLA - FG, JEFF FERGUSON 39 YD, 11:43
4TH QTR: COL - TD, ROMAN HOLLOWELL 20 YD PASS FROM MIKE MOSCHETTI
(PAT FAILED), 3:45
COL - TD, MARCUS WASHINGTON 40 YD INTERCEPTION RETURN
(JEREMY ALDRICH KICK), 4:43
OKLA - TD, DEMOND PARKER 49 YD RUN (TWO-POINT CONVERSION
FAILED), 5:44
OKLA - TD, JASON FREEMAN 25 YD PASS FROM PATRICK FLETCHER
(MATT REEVES KICK), 13:55

It was as wrong then as it was last night
I also thought pinkel was wrong to go for 2 at 26-21 too early
I just wish Stoops didn't "press his luck" so much--give the guys more chances. West Virginia Florida etc

[nighttrain12]

Wow, those are names from the past. Matt Reeves, Patrick Fletcher?

Thank goodness the name John Blake is a name from the PAST! :)

[rekamrettuB]

By going for two and missing (obviously) the game was in Mizzu's hands since OU only had one TO. By keeping it at 8 (one possession) the pressure is now on Mizzu's offense to make a couple first downs. It was a dumb decision.

As for the "keeping up hope a little longer" comment, sure it wouldn't matter to us fans but it damn sure would have mattered to the players. Lost all the momentum OU gained by missing.

[landrun]

Guys, I don't see how you can justify this call!!

It is as simple as this - Yes. You have to make the 2 point conversion at some time but, if you miss it here you turn this into a 2 possession game rather than a 1 possession game. It changes all you have to do for the remainder of the game to keep from losing it. You make the clock your enemy and you have to get two onside kicks - which I have never witnessed but maybe once my whole life from any team.

[soonerbub]

Amen brother if we had beat cu and cal we would've been 7-4
no way the regents pull the trigger then

You have to make it a one score game that's how the big boys (NFL) do it everytime

[SoonerShark]

I agree that you go for the easiest point or easiest choice since that puts more pressure on them when the opponent is down by 8 rather than by 9. Sometimes you just play the odds. Going for it on 4th down on the punt against Texas in 2008 was not prudent. Even before the results were evident I was crying how that was stupid. Against WVU in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl we were slowly climbing back into the game and did something on the kick-off that allowed WVU to regain momentum. Sometimes you don't need tricks, only execution. Hopefully, this season we will get to play number 1 Missouri in Arlington with the usual old Sooner-Tiger results.

[jkjsooner]

Behind 36-21.

Scored TD, 36-27. Behind by nine.

Kick an extra point, 36-28 - a one possession game, 6+ minutes left in the game.

Easy right?

I guess not.

You go for it 100% of the time in this situation.

1. As others have said, you have to go for it once either way. You might as well get it over with.

2. Going for 1 might make you feel like you're in the game longer, but the point is a miss on the 2 point conversion puts you 2 scores behind either way.

3. If you miss it you know you're two scores behind and call the game accordingly. If you miss it at the end of the game you can't go back and adjust your strategy.

4. If you wait until after the second TD, the defense knows the two point conversion is coming. After the first TD it's not entirely clear so you might be at an ever so slight personnel advantage - or you may at least force the defense to call a timeout to get the proper personnel in the game.


Guys, it's about winning the game not some feel good "staying in the game as long as possible" B.S. Going for it the first time increases your probability of winning. It's as simple as that.

[jkjsooner]

So the argument here is that we should've kicked the extra point just so we could "stay in the game longer?" I personally don't care how long we stayed in the game if we weren't going to win.

Exactly. If we don't make the two point conversion we probably lose. It doesn't matter when we miss it or how good we felt about staying in the game longer.

The only reason I can think of to go for 1 at that point in the game is a consideration of momentum. If you think you have a lot of momentum and don't want to risk losing it by losing the 2 point conversion then maybe you go for 1. Without emotional issues in consideration, the correct logical choice is to go for 2 as early as possible so that you can plan accordingly.

[Curly Bill]

:O

[Sooner_Tuf]

Win in regulation? We were down by 15 if you don't remember. I mean I guess we could have won in regulation if we did two two point conversions. But they would have gone for the tie on the second td.

Yes I remember. Two touchdowns and two 2 point conversions would have won the game. Anyway you look at it we were two or three possessions from a win. Two or three possessions where we play better than we did.

In any case it doesn't really matter. We went for it and didn't get it. We lost by nine points. If we kicked the PAT (assuming we made it) we would have lost by eight points.

[jkjsooner]

The odds are better though to lay it all on the line on one final play at the end of the game vs. instead of trying to score twice in 6 minutes (-4 minutes Mizzou has the ball on 2 possessions).

Surely you can see that your comparison is flawed, right? You assume we miss the 2 point conversion after the first TD but make no similar assumption about the 2 point try after the second TD.

Please elaborate the situation prior to trying the first 2 point conversion - without knowledge of whether it passed or failed. Or, if you want to assume a failure then I'll turn it around on you and assume a failure the second time. Now, would you rather be 9 points behind with some time left on the clock or 2 points behind with no time on the clock?

[soonercastor]

Surely you can see that your comparison is flawed, right? You assume we miss the 2 point conversion after the first TD but make no similar assumption about the 2 point try after the second TD.

Please elaborate the situation prior to trying the first 2 point conversion - without knowledge of whether it passed or failed. Or, if you want to assume a failure then I'll turn it around on you and assume a failure the second time. Now, would you rather be 9 points behind with some time left on the clock or 2 points behind with no time on the clock?

you always think of the WORST case scenario, and also how do you guys not understand that with a ONE possession game and 6 minutes left the pressure is on THEM and their playbook is pretty much limited.

[jkjsooner]

By going for two and missing (obviously) the game was in Mizzu's hands since OU only had one TO. By keeping it at 8 (one possession) the pressure is now on Mizzu's offense to make a couple first downs. It was a dumb decision.

As for the "keeping up hope a little longer" comment, sure it wouldn't matter to us fans but it damn sure would have mattered to the players. Lost all the momentum OU gained by missing.

Even though I disagree, I gotta give you props. Unlike most of the "go for 2 the second time" posts on here you present a logical reason to wait that wouldn't leave the professors in the math department cringing.

It really boils down to:

1. Dealing with the deflation and momentum change of missing the two point conversion.

vs.

2. Adjusting the gameplan as early as possible after a pass/fail on the two point conversion.

It's really about how you weigh these two concerns.

If players were emotionless robots then #1 wouldn't really be a concern.

[jkjsooner]

Amen brother if we had beat cu and cal we would've been 7-4
no way the regents pull the trigger then

You have to make it a one score game that's how the big boys (NFL) do it everytime

There was an identical situation in the NFL just a couple of weeks ago and the coach went for it the first time.

[jkjsooner]

you always think of the WORST case scenario, and also how do you guys not understand that with a ONE possession game and 6 minutes left the pressure is on THEM and their playbook is pretty much limited.

Again, pressure is an emtional attribute so you weigh the emotional considerations vs the statistical/analytical considerations. Emotional considerations aside, you go for it the first time. With these considerations it's not as clear.

My point isn't that you are wrong. My point is that many of the other posters who support your side have severe flaws in their logic.

As far as worse case scenarios, again if you wait and don't gameplan in time for two more scores and you miss the 2 point conversion after the second TD (worse case, right?) then you give yourself 0% chance of winning.

[sooneron]

I actually thought that if we had made the conversion and scored again, he would have gone for two the second time FTW. You rarely want to get into an OT game on the road.

I can see the logic of both sides of this argument, so, I guess it wasn't the wrong call...

[TUSooner]

2. Adjusting the gameplan as early as possible after a pass/fail on the two point conversion.


Sorry, but defending the going for 2 the 1st time on the PRESUMption that it would not work is just silly. If that's the presumption, then why try it at all? Look, if everything goes right, you barely even have enough time to score once more after that TD, much less twice, this BS about saving some time in case you need 3 scores is brain flatulence. It's like leaving yourself money in your own will as if you could collect it after you die. By going for 2 early, you only hurry the "moment of truth": by not making it, the OU fans had an excuse to leave early to get to their cars.

You must take the single XP and keep it a 1-score game, and then you score again and either make the 2 or not. Honestly, there is not a crumb of logic in favor of going for 2 right early.

Face it, we lost that game for many reasons - including Mizzou, dont't forget -- and we deserved to lose. But the end-game management was pathetically incompetent. It was worthy of Les Miles. It made no sense to (1) go for 2; (2) punt; and (3) having blown any chance at a miracle finish by way of (1) and (2), to run the toss-it-around-til-somebody-gets-blown-up play. It was just plain stupid, and it's more stupid to cover it up with lame rationalizations. Them's just facts. If Bob & Staff don't realize that, at least privately, then I'll worry about them.
__________________

[JustLooking]

There's no law against going for two twice for the win. Say we played for the tie and over time. We'd have to go for the TD every time. I doubt we could have won a field goal duel.

[TUSooner]

And we knew by not getting it that we needed two scores so we could play call accordingly.
This the the baby-poo logic of which I speak. You're only gonna get 1 more shot anyway. IOW, if you're playing for 2 more scores, you're done and dusted already.

[jkjsooner]

This the the baby-poo logic of which I speak. You're only gonna get 1 more shot anyway. IOW, if you're playing for 2 more scores, you're done and dusted already.

There were SIX minutes left on the clock. You have plenty of time for a stop, a fairly quick score, and an onside kick/field goal. I like the chances of that a lot more than kicking the extra point, making a stop, scoring a TD on a time consuming drive and missing the two point conversion with not time on the clock.

I'd rather know that I need to score quickly on the second TD than not knowing whether I need to or not.

Either way, your assertion that you only have time for one more score sure doesn't support waiting to convert the 2 point try. If you know the best case scenario is two TD's and a two point conversion on one of the two it really doesn't matter which one you choose to try the 2 point conversion - unless of course you're into moral victories and "staying in the game" as long as possible.



I also want to take back what I said earlier about momentum. Simply put, you have to either make a two point conversion or score twice. Assuming a two point failure on either scenario, what good is keeping momentum if you end up losing the game by a failed two point conversion?

Assuming failures, the only argument for waiting is if you think that the momentum would give you a better chance for two additional scores. I like the odds of adjusting the gameplan knowing you need two scores a lot more than anything the additional momentum would give you.

[Eielson]

Hey guys...we lost by 9. End of discussion.

[TUSooner]

There were SIX minutes left on the clock. You have plenty of time for a stop, a fairly quick score, and an onside kick/field goal. I like the chances of that a lot more than kicking the extra point, making a stop, scoring a TD on a time consuming drive and missing the two point conversion with not time on the clock.
[Why? Because you'll "adjust the game plan" to get TWO more scoring possessions without time consuming drives ?? HOW ?!?]

I'd rather know that I need to score quickly on the second TD than not knowing whether I need to or not.

Either way, your assertion that you only have time for one more score sure doesn't support waiting to convert the 2 point try. If you know the best case scenario is two TD's and a two point conversion on one of the two it really doesn't matter which one you choose to try the 2 point conversion - unless of course you're into moral victories and "staying in the game" as long as possible.


I also want to take back what I said earlier about momentum. Simply put, you have to either make a two point conversion or score twice. Assuming a two point failure on either scenario, what good is keeping momentum if you end up losing the game by a failed two point conversion?

Assuming failures, the only argument for waiting is if you think that the momentum would give you a better chance for two additional scores. I like the odds of adjusting the gameplan knowing you need two scores a lot more than anything the additional momentum would give you.

OK, I realize that this is a purely academic discussion at this point, but still, that argument for wrong choice of going for 2 first must be utterly destroyed !!!! :eek: :eek:.

The gist of the case of you go-for-2-now-ers (SF.com's equivalent to the Flat Earth Society) seems to be this: Don't risk missing a 2 later. Instead, risk missing one early and then bank on "adjusting the game plan" (whatever that means) to get 2 more SCORING possessions in 6 minutes (with no time-outs IIRC). This logic is tortured, to say the least. The chance of making a TD+2 at the end is much better than the chance of getting 2 more possessions, which means getting 2 on-side kicks or one plus a 3 & out, AND SCORING after EACH one, with only 6 minutes left. Simply put, the odds for 1 more possesion with a TD+2 are much more favorable than the odds for 2 more scoring possessions. How do you answer that?

And yes, you DO want to keep the game alive as long as possible. It's got nothing to do with "moral victories" -- it's staying alive to get a real chance vistory. Rolling the dice on the early 2-pointer just means the game is over sooner if you miss, which is precisely what the failed 2-pointer did. You had to have seen that "adjusting the game plan to get 2 more possessions" was a silly pipe dream that NOBODY bought into except a few couch jockeys grasping for excuses for a bad decision by OUr coaches.

The ONLY reason you'd go for 2 the first time (and it's not a good reason) is if you intend to go for 2 twice and avoid OT by winning the game in regulation. But again, if you miss the 1st one, it's game over.

OK, I think I may have that out of my system ! :D

[jkjsooner]

This logic is tortured, to say the least. The chance of making a TD+2 at the end is much better than the chance of getting 2 more possessions, which means getting 2 on-side kicks or one plus a 3 & out, AND SCORING after EACH one, with only 6 minutes left. Simply put, the odds for 1 more possesion with a TD+2 are much more favorable than the odds for 2 more scoring possessions. How do you answer that?

Wow. You don't see the flaw in your logic? In one scenario you assume a 2 point conversion failure yet do not make the same assumption in the other. You seriously think that is a fair comparison?

Fine I'll play too. I'm going to assume a failure after the second TD and not make that assumption on an attempt after TD #1. Then which looks like the smarter choice?


If you are going to make an argument, let's talk apples to apples. Compare the following:

1. TD #1 two point failure vs TD #2 two point failure
2. TD #1 two point success vs TD #2 two point success

Unless you can come up with a valid argument on why the two point conversion has a higher probability after TD #2 then you have to assume failure/success in BOTH scenarios.

Maybe you have a crystal ball that I'm not aware of and you knew the conversion would fail after the first TD. If so, please share it with coach Stoops.

[jkjsooner]

And by the way, Dick Vermeil's conversion chart shows to go for it when trailing by nine.

[rekamrettuB]

And by the way, Dick Vermeil's conversion chart shows to go for it when trailing by nine.

How could you read it between all the tear drop marks? :)

[jkjsooner]

How could you read it between all the tear drop marks? :)

I'm defending our coaches so clearly I'm not the one crying here.

[rekamrettuB]

I'm defending our coaches so clearly I'm not the one crying here.

No...Dick Vermeil has a bad habit of crying...a lot.

[nighttrain12]

Stoops uses 'John Blake' logic to justify his decision. Blake was wrong then and Stoops is wrong now.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-notebook-bob-stoops-defends-two-point-call/article/3507863


OU football notebook: Bob Stoops defends two-point call

By Jake Trotter, Staff Writer, [email protected] Oklahoman
Published: October 24, 2010

Bob Stoops came under fire in the postgame press conference for going for the two-point conversion down by nine with 6:06 to go.

An extra point would have made it a one-possession game — though the Sooners would have had to go for two eventually.

Instead, Stoops went for it then. But when Landry Jones' pass fell incomplete, OU was down two scores and was forced to try an onside kick that was recovered by Missouri.

"Why not? You've got to get two at some point, right? If you go for two then you know what you have to do with your kickoff," Stoops said, when asked why he didn't wait to go for two. "If we made the two points we could have kicked it deep and used our timeouts and still had a chance. To me, it was the right time to go for it.

"I don't see why that is even a question. To me, it was the only thing to do."

[jumperstop]

2 point conversions are always stupid if you don't make them but genius and guttsy if you do make them. We needed a 2 point conversion, he decided to go for it on the first td. I honestly never had a problem with the call as it makes sense to me to have to know how to plan the rest of the game. If you get it, you know you only need a TD with an extra point, if you don't then you know you need two scores. I think knowing what game plan to have in the final six minutes out wieghs any momentum that they might have gotten from that. Did you guys think the momentum really shifted in thier favor after that? I mean other than the fact that it was going to be hard for us to win the game and giving them the ball on the 40 after the onside, we did stop them and force a punt...

[jumperstop]

Stoops uses 'John Blake' logic to justify his decision. Blake was wrong then and Stoops is wrong now.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-notebook-bob-stoops-defends-two-point-call/article/3507863

Makes perfect sense to me. I think Stoops knows how to coach football better than most of us, well I say that but I forgot about that fact we punted on that final drive instead of going for it.

[TopDawg]

Wow. You don't see the flaw in your logic? In one scenario you assume a 2 point conversion failure yet do not make the same assumption in the other. You seriously think that is a fair comparison?

The major flaw that I see in the "go for two now" camp is that it assumes no time will be left at the end of the game...that the two-point conversion will certainly be the last play of the game. If it's not the last play of the game, you've put yourself in the same situation as the "go for two later" camp...needing one more possession after missing it.

Given that, I figure it's always better to be trailing by one possession than two possessions.

[StoopTroup]

Stoops uses 'John Blake' logic to justify his decision. Blake was wrong then and Stoops is wrong now.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-notebook-bob-stoops-defends-two-point-call/article/3507863

If we made that...he's a genius.

Really sad for you to compare Bob to John Blake. You're crazy.

[TopDawg]

If we made that...he's a genius.

Really sad for you to compare Bob to John Blake. You're crazy.

This isn't a matter of "Make it = genius, miss it = stupid."

It's a matter of "Make it = dumb luck, miss it = dumb."

[rekamrettuB]

"Why not? You've got to get two at some point, right? If you go for two then you know what you have to do with your kickoff," Stoops said, when asked why he didn't wait to go for two. "If we made the two points we could have kicked it deep and used our timeouts and still had a chance. To me, it was the right time to go for it.



You kick the XP and you can kick it deep too. Let's say you score w/ 1:00 left on the clock and miss the 2 pointer. Still have to kick the onside kick but now you only need 1 onside kick instead of 2 (as was the case after missing it the 1st time). Still down two you have to drive about 40-50 yards...maybe more with Stevens kicking...to get in field goal range.

Main thing is you only need 1 onside kick in this situation. Am I missing anything?

[jkjsooner]

Stoops uses 'John Blake' logic to justify his decision. Blake was wrong then and Stoops is wrong now.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-notebook-bob-stoops-defends-two-point-call/article/3507863

You quote "John Blake" logic yet I don't see that anywhere in the article. Stoops makes a rational argument that would make the math department proud. The rest, well, they can go back to taking their liberal arts classes.

[Okie35]

If we made that...he's a genius.

Really sad for you to compare Bob to John Blake. You're crazy.

That's what I tried to say yesterday. I mean I get the other side of the argument too.

[mightysooner]

Stoops uses 'John Blake' logic to justify his decision. Blake was wrong then and Stoops is wrong now.

http://newsok.com/ou-football-notebook-bob-stoops-defends-two-point-call/article/3507863

What an idiotic response. Even if you kick the PAT, with timeouts left, you kick it deep and try to get the stop with plenty of time left instead of forcing yourself to have to go for an onside kick and giving the other team good field position. That 4 million dollar response lacks intelligence and doesn't fly. It's crystal clear that Bob made the wrong decision.

[jkjsooner]

The major flaw that I see in the "go for two now" camp is that it assumes no time will be left at the end of the game...that the two-point conversion will certainly be the last play of the game. If it's not the last play of the game, you've put yourself in the same situation as the "go for two later" camp...needing one more possession after missing it.

Given that, I figure it's always better to be trailing by one possession than two possessions.


I'm not assuming no time left on the clock. But, we all agree that time is a critical factor, correct?

Let's assume the failure scenario, do you like the chances of two scores knowing you need two scores or the chances of getting two scores when you do not know you need the second score until after the first TD? Which scenario most likely leaves more time on the clock?

Also, no comment on your crystal ball logic?

[StoopTroup]

That's what I tried to say yesterday. I mean I get the other side of the argument too.

Argueing something doesn't make Bob wrong in calling for the 2 pt conversion either though...he gambled and played to win...I bet he'd make that call again.

[jkjsooner]

You kick the XP and you can kick it deep too. Let's say you score w/ 1:00 left on the clock and miss the 2 pointer. Still have to kick the onside kick but now you only need 1 onside kick instead of 2 (as was the case after missing it the 1st time). Still down two you have to drive about 40-50 yards...maybe more with Stevens kicking...to get in field goal range.

Main thing is you only need 1 onside kick in this situation. Am I missing anything?

To put it simply, yes you are missing something.

You argue in one scenario you can score two additional TD's with only one onside kick. In the scenario where you know you need two scores, you argue you need two onside kicks?

If you can score the first additional TD with 1:00 left on the clock without an onside kick, then why in the world could you not do the same when you know you need two scores?

[TopDawg]

I'm not assuming no time left on the clock.

...............



3. If you miss it you know you're two scores behind and call the game accordingly. If you miss it at the end of the game you can't go back and adjust your strategy.


Or, if you want to assume a failure then I'll turn it around on you and assume a failure the second time. Now, would you rather be 9 points behind with some time left on the clock or 2 points behind with no time on the clock?


As far as worse case scenarios, again if you wait and don't gameplan in time for two more scores and you miss the 2 point conversion after the second TD (worse case, right?) then you give yourself 0% chance of winning.


I like the chances of that a lot more than kicking the extra point, making a stop, scoring a TD on a time consuming drive and missing the two point conversion with not time on the clock.

[TopDawg]

Let's assume the failure scenario, do you like the chances of two scores knowing you need two scores or the chances of getting two scores when you do not know you need the second score until after the first TD? Which scenario most likely leaves more time on the clock?

Also, no comment on your crystal ball logic?

The crystal ball comment applies just as much to you as to anybody else. You pretend like there is going to be time for two possessions in your scenario and virtually no time remaining for a second possession in the other one.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what is going to happen after the conversion attempt (whether it's one-point or two-points). Momentum aside (although I think it's a critical factor) I figure it's easier to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by one-possession" gameplan than to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by two-possessions" gameplan.

[jumperstop]

Some people are idiots and just want to bitch about stupid stuff like this and not the fact that we turned over the ball deep in our territory multiple times in the game, or that our defense couldn't tackle for ****. We should have never been in that position but we were, so Stoops made the decision to go for. We needed it either way. I really don't know if we could have put together a drive to get a second td anyways. Our offensive momentum was dying at that point...

[jumperstop]

The crystal ball comment applies just as much to you as to anybody else. You pretend like there is going to be time for two possessions in your scenario and virtually no time remaining for a second possession in the other one.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what is going to happen after the conversion attempt (whether it's one-point or two-points). Momentum aside (although I think it's a critical factor) I figure it's easier to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by one-possession" gameplan than to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by two-possessions" gameplan.

What momentum, we stopped them after one first down I think and forced them to punt. We had about 3 min left on the clock, if we were going to drive down the field that's where we do it. Enough time for another onside attempt.

[Okie35]

Argueing something doesn't make Bob wrong in calling for the 2 pt conversion either though...he gambled and played to win...I bet he'd make that call again.

Oh I also said I personally would've kicked the XP. I just said if we got that then nobody would say anything.

[OUmillenium]

Behind 36-21.

Scored TD, 36-27. Behind by nine.

Kick an extra point, 36-28 - a one possession game, 6+ minutes left in the game.

Easy right?





I guess not.


Yes, terrible decision by our staff. It's game over if you don't make it when we tried it. You don't roll the dice there. You play yourself back into the chance to get it at the end. Build up momentum/confidence in your team and doubt/fatigue in the other team then if it all comes down to it => your team is jacked and has better odds. The if you lose, it's a 2 point loss on the road to a ranked team and doesn't kill your computer ranking.

One of the worst of many poor decisions by this staff as of late.

[jkjsooner]

The crystal ball comment applies just as much to you as to anybody else. You pretend like there is going to be time for two possessions in your scenario and virtually no time remaining for a second possession in the other one.

The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what is going to happen after the conversion attempt (whether it's one-point or two-points). Momentum aside (although I think it's a critical factor) I figure it's easier to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by one-possession" gameplan than to come up with and execute a successful "trailing by two-possessions" gameplan.

First, any comment about having no time was simply for simplicity. I drew a scenario that's easiest to elaborate as I didn't want to write a thesis.

I stand by my statement: under a failure scenario when you need two additional scores, you will most likely have more time if you gameplan in the need for two scores.

None of that is the type of crystal ball logic you used.

[Tear Down This Wall]

What an idiotic response. Even if you kick the PAT, with timeouts left, you kick it deep and try to get the stop with plenty of time left instead of forcing yourself to have to go for an onside kick and giving the other team good field position. That 4 million dollar response lacks intelligence and doesn't fly. It's crystal clear that Bob made the wrong decision.

...to everyone except Bob.

[TopDawg]

What momentum, we stopped them after one first down I think and forced them to punt. We had about 3 min left on the clock, if we were going to drive down the field that's where we do it. Enough time for another onside attempt.

Yeah, but we had to kick an onside kick (because we were down two possessions) so when we forced them to punt after one first down, we were pinned deep.

Momentum edge: Missouri. We're pinned deep and they know we have to score twice.

[rekamrettuB]

To put it simply, yes you are missing something.

You argue in one scenario you can score two additional TD's with only one onside kick. In the scenario where you know you need two scores, you argue you need two onside kicks?

If you can score the first additional TD with 1:00 left on the clock without an onside kick, then why in the world could you not do the same when you know you need two scores?

I'm just quoting what Stoops said...""If we made the two points we could have kicked it deep and used our timeouts and still had a chance. To me, it was the right time to go for it."

Now, since it is still a 1 possession game if the XP is kicked then you can still kick it deep and 1 of your scores will come from much better field position. He also mentions "timeouts". There were no timeouts...there was "a" timeout. You only have to rely on 1 onside kick instead of missing the 2 pt conversion like we did, kicking the onside, recovering, scoring either 3 or 7, and the recovering another onside kick.

[TopDawg]

I stand by my statement: under a failure scenario when you need two additional scores, you will most likely have more time if you gameplan in the need for two scores.

Yes, if you know you're going to fail, it's better to fail early. But...that's crystal ball logic.

The thing is, we don't know what's going to happen. So it's better to get the game to one possession as soon as possible.

[TopDawg]

Yes, if you know you're going to fail, it's better to fail early. But...that's crystal ball logic.

Heck, for that matter...if you know you're going to fail, it's better to just kick the extra points.

[jkjsooner]

Yes, if you know you're going to fail, it's better to fail early. But...that's crystal ball logic.

The thing is, we don't know what's going to happen. So it's better to get the game to one possession as soon as possible.

I'm enumerating the possibilities. You have to consider the failure scenario and the succesful scenario. If the conversion succeeds there's really no argument. If it fails then I'd rather fail early and adjust.

There is no crystal ball logic there. Not like your scenario where you compared a failure if you try first to an indeterminant result if you wait. My guess is that you have realized your mistake when you brought that scenario up but you're too stubborn to admit that you didn't think through what you were saying.

I'm going to assume that lest I be forced to believe you are logically illiterate.

[jkjsooner]

I'm trying to put this as simply as possible.

If you can make the case that the two point conversion after the second TD would have a higher probability of success than after the first TD then make that case.

If you can't make that argument then you must weigh the consequences of a failure at either point or a success at either point.

Sure, you could argue that we might fail the first time and succeed the second time but I could easily say we could just as easily fail the second time and succeed the first. Unless the probabilities of a successful try differ then you really have to compare success/success and fail/fail.

Scenario 1: You succeed after TD #1 or TD #2. No real debate here.

Scenario 2: You fail after TD #1 or TD #2. Again, I like my chances to adjust to the failure sooner rather than later.

There is no "crystal ball" logic here. I'm enumerating and analyzing the possibilities.


The only valid argument for waiting that I've seen is the momentum/emotional impact of missing the two point conversion. Considering the failure scenarios, maybe you argue that you have a higher probability to get that following TD. Upon the failure of the 2 point try you lose momentum but if you get the onside kick you gain it right back. That's valid but I still like knowing I need to score quickly.


In statistical/logical terms staying "within one score" really doesn't improve your chances of winning. Football is too complex to enumerate every possible alternative but you could easily devise a game of chance with essentially the same factors (including the ability to alter strategy based on previous results) and could prove mathematically that you maximize your chance of winning by making the decision as early as possible.


All that said, you don't go for 2 in the first quarter as the chance of success < 50% and at that point you expect all sorts of scoring opportunities with field goals, touchdowns, maybe even safeties occuring after that point. You don't want to chase that missed conversion all game long. Things change when you get to the end of the game - especially when you're in a position where any chance of winning pretty much requires you to stop the other team from scoring any more points.

[soonercastor]

Yes your argument is valid, but saying you will have time to adjust if you fail the first time is a long stretch, because you would need to recover at least ONE or TWO onside kicks which doesn't happen often. So by missing the 2-pt the first time is pretty much as missing the second time because its virtually over (realistically) in either case. SO you put the one point and keep playing ball.

[Blue]

Anybody who thinks that was a good call is delusional. 90% of the fans agree. Gameday Final agreed. The NFL agrees.

Get it to 8 points and put all the pressure on Missouri to make some first downs and be conservative trying to run some clock.

[jumperstop]

Anybody who thinks that was a good call is delusional. 90% of the fans agree. Gameday Final agreed. The NFL agrees.

Get it to 8 points and put all the pressure on Missouri to make some first downs and be conservative trying to run some clock.

Anybody who thinks that our offense was playing well enough in the fourth quarter to march down the field and score again anyways is delusional. Only reason we scored once was because a lucky return and two automatic first down penalties within thier 15 yard line.

Gameday Final is crap and good thing we don't play in the NFL. How the hell can "the NFL" agree? What does that even mean? Not saying that's what I would have done, maybe or maybe not I'm not a coach. I understand where Stoops is coming from though and really at this point, it doesn't ****ing matter. It's what Stoops chose to do, sitting here crying about it ain't going to help.

[TopDawg]

I'm enumerating the possibilities. You have to consider the failure scenario and the succesful scenario. If the conversion succeeds there's really no argument. If it fails then I'd rather fail early and adjust.

There is no crystal ball logic there. Not like your scenario where you compared a failure if you try first to an indeterminant result if you wait. My guess is that you have realized your mistake when you brought that scenario up but you're too stubborn to admit that you didn't think through what you were saying.

I'm going to assume that lest I be forced to believe you are logically illiterate.

There's no doubt in my mind that you've figured out the best way to fail. You've figured it out for the 2-point conversion and you've figured it out for this debate. ;)

The way I'd approach the 2-point conversion is that I want to figure out the most likely scenario for success (not the best way to fail). Since the chances of converting the 2-point conversion are about the same at the 6:00 mark as they are later in the game (unless someone has proof otherwise), I'm going to go with the method that lets my players, coaches and fans feel like they have a better chance of winning the game (i.e. - being down one possession instead of two). Will it increase my chances of scoring the 2-point conversion? No. Will it increase my chances of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game? I say, emphatically, "YES!" And since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor.

[TUSooner]

If you can make the case that the two point conversion after the second TD would have a higher probability of success than after the first TD then make that case.....Unless the probabilities of a successful try differ then you really have to compare success/success and fail/fail.

If Bob really thought there was a better a chance to get the 2 early when they weren't expecting it, that's one thing. Maybe he had a hunch. Fair enough . If there really were a better chance of getting the 2 the 1st time, then that'd be the good call, but if the chances are the same, you look instead to the risks of failure. If you fail on the first try, you lose the game, because there are no "game plan adjustments" that include divine intervention or time travel. You simply do not have time for 2 more possessions and 2 more scores and another onside kick recovery or 2. How do we know this? Because that's exactly what happened.



Again, I like my chances to adjust to the failure sooner rather than later.

If by "adjust to the failure" you mean "accept defeat gracefully" I agree. Otherwise, here is your fatal delusion: With 6 minutes and 1 time out you're betting on getting 2 possessions which must include 1 or 2 successul on-side kicks? I want to see the miraculous game plan adjustments you'll make for this. You could sell it for billions to football coaches and megalomaniac arch-villains bent on world domination through time travel. The unleasant truth is that you barely have time for one more possession, much less 2.

Looky here, my way does not guarantee a win, but your way just means you can lose quicker and get it over with.



The only valid argument for waiting that I've seen is the momentum/emotional impact of missing the two point conversion.

If you mean that you "lose momentum" when victory is suddenly out of reach, I agree.


Considering the failure scenarios, maybe you argue that you have a higher probability to get that following TD. Upon the failure of the 2 point try you lose momentum but if you get the onside kick you gain it right back. That's valid but I still like knowing I need to score quickly.
You didn't think you needed to score quickly already?
Let's consider the failure scenario compared to the successful PAT scenario:
The question is whether the odds of a defensive stop (or onside kick) + TD+2 (the successful PAT scenario) are more favorable than the odds of a getting a stop/onsider + TD + another stop/onsider + FG ..... in 6 minutes with 1 timeout (the failure scenario, which happened). Unless you can show it is easier to score a 7 and a 3 in 2 possessions than it is to score 6+2 in one possession, you lose the debate.

Look, My way does not guarantee a win, but I am sure that someone with mad math skillz can show that the odds of getting the game to OT are better if you take the single than if you miss the 2.


In statistical/logical terms staying "within one score" really doesn't improve your chances of winning. WHAT ?!?!!? You don't believe that. It bloody well damn sure does make a difference when you have but the slimmest likelihood of getting the ball back TWICE, which again is exactly what happened.



Football is too complex to enumerate every possible alternative but.....

I'll sum up: By failing at an early 2-pointer, you learn you have lost the game, because there is no time for your delusional miracle game-plan adjustments, unless they defy time and space, and because knowing you need 2 scores doesn't give you more time or ability to get them. (And if you think you might miss the 2-pointer after the 2nd TD, then nothing is stopping you from appying the miracle adjustments anyway, eh?)

BOTTOM LINE: You cannot showthat chances of scoring on two separate possessions are better than scoring a TD+2 on one possession. The End.

[jkjsooner]

I'm just quoting what Stoops said...""If we made the two points we could have kicked it deep and used our timeouts and still had a chance. To me, it was the right time to go for it."

Now, since it is still a 1 possession game if the XP is kicked then you can still kick it deep and 1 of your scores will come from much better field position. He also mentions "timeouts". There were no timeouts...there was "a" timeout. You only have to rely on 1 onside kick instead of missing the 2 pt conversion like we did, kicking the onside, recovering, scoring either 3 or 7, and the recovering another onside kick.

I'm not going to argue Stoops' quote as it isn't relevant to the question I asked you. That question is, please explain to me why missing the 2 point conversion after the first TD requires two onside kicks whereas missing the 2 point conversion after the second TD only requires one onside kick?

How is it that you can score a TD with a minute left under the second scenario but can't do the same under the first scenario?

[TUSooner]

***since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor.

I wish I'd said that. :O

[SoonerAtKU]

The major flaw that I see in the "go for two now" camp is that it assumes no time will be left at the end of the game...that the two-point conversion will certainly be the last play of the game. If it's not the last play of the game, you've put yourself in the same situation as the "go for two later" camp...needing one more possession after missing it.

Given that, I figure it's always better to be trailing by one possession than two possessions.

Dawg,

The reason people are assuming no/little time left on the clock is that that's the point of a game-ending drive. If OU is down 8, they're going to try to score with time expiring to avoid giving a fired-up home team the chance to win it with a big return or a trick play (remember that they weren't scared to run a few of those, and we know all too well how those have worked out for us on the road in recent years).

Personally, I agree with Bob and I said it from my couch after the score. You have to go for 2 then, rather than have it all come down to a 2 point play at the end of a game in front of a rabid crowd and a jacked-up defense. If the game was in Norman, I agree with you completely, as the crowd would be in it and Missouri would have been in a bad situation.

Not to mention, that if OU had recovered the onside and scored very quickly, there still could have been upwards of 5 minutes left to play, they might have been able to save a timeout with good play calling, and a field goal would have won the game outright instead of hoping to make a 2 point play in a charged atmosphere to MAYBE send it to overtime on the ROAD?!?!

All of you who are arguing that it would change Missouri's mindset on offense to be within one score may be right, but you're overlooking the mindset of their defense at home, at night, in either a 2 point conversion scenario to either win or go to OT, and then again in OT. That's NOT a situation any coach wants to get into, and Stoops played to get the win. It didn't work out, and that sucks, but if the ball is caught, and the great onside kick was recovered, we're singing a different tune this morning. Maybe it wouldn't have been a win, but in my opinion, it was the right call every time.

[TUSooner]

I'm not going to argue Stoops' quote as it isn't relevant to the question I asked you. That question is, please explain to me why missing the 2 point conversion after the first TD requires two onside kicks whereas missing the 2 point conversion after the second TD only requires one onside kick?

How is it that you can score a TD with a minute left under the second scenario but can't do the same under the first scenario?

Now you're just being obtuse. Look at it this way: Assume there are 6 minutes left in the game, and you have just scored and are kicking off. Do you want to be behind by 8 or 9? See, if you are behind by 8, you have a chance of tying the game with 1 onside kick (or 1 stop) and 1 offensive possession. If you are behind by 9, you need 1 onside kick (or 1 stop) plus a score, then ANOTHER onside kick (or a very quick stop), and then another score. (That's one more onside kick / stop and one more offensive drive than you need if you are behind by 8.) In simpler terms: 2>1 You fought hard for your position, but your screwy logic smells as bad as the dead horse we are flogging. Surrender! ;)

[jkjsooner]

If you fail on the first try, you lose the game, because there are no "game plan adjustments" that include divine intervention or time travel. You simply do not have time for 2 more possessions and 2 more scores and another onside kick recovery or 2. How do we know this? Because that's exactly what happened.

And if you fail on the second try? My goodness, man, do you think before you type?

I agree with one thing you wrote. It is about risk and reward. If you fail the second time you are putting yourself at much more risk than if you fail the first time.




If by "adjust to the failure" you mean "accept defeat gracefully"

I totally disagree with this. With six minutes left you have time to score 10 points. Are the odds against you? Sure. A conversion miss means the odds are against you no matter when you attemp the conversion.



The question is whether the odds of a defensive stop (or onside kick) + TD+2 (the successful PAT scenario) are more favorable than the odds of a getting a stop/onsider + TD + another stop/onsider + FG ..... in 6 minutes with 1 timeout (the failure scenario, which happened). [B]Unless you can show it is easier to score a 7 and a 3 in 2 possessions than it is to score 6+2 in one possession, you lose the debate.

Oh my God! You guys are all using the same crystal ball. Again, you assume we fail on the conversion if done after the first TD but you leave it up to chance on whether we make it after the second TD.

How can I explain this to you? Stoops doesn't have your crystal ball and he made the decision BEFORE the two point conversion.

I'll admit, If I know the first try would fail then, yes, the odds of getting a stop + TD + 2 is higher than a stop + TD + onside + FG.

Unfortunately, Stoops, being a mortal human, isn't given prior knowledge that the first try will fail. Again, please share that crystal ball of yours with Stoops.

[rekamrettuB]

I'm not going to argue Stoops' quote as it isn't relevant to the question I asked you. That question is, please explain to me why missing the 2 point conversion after the first TD requires two onside kicks whereas missing the 2 point conversion after the second TD only requires one onside kick?

How is it that you can score a TD with a minute left under the second scenario but can't do the same under the first scenario?

Well we saw 1 onside kick after missing the 2 point try right? If Stoops felt like he needed an onside there then, unless OU scores in 3 plays or less, he would probably feel he needed another after the score to pull w/in 2. OU only had 1 timeout. If they score quick enough then maybe they can kick it deep and hope you can stop them w/ no first downs. So under this scenario there is 1+ onside kick tries right? We saw one and if they scored possibly had to do another.

Playing for the two later could have resulted in a kick deep...hopefully the same stop as above, punt score, try for two. Make it and no onside is necessary. Miss it and you have to try 1. So under this scenario there is 1 onside kick max and possibly zero if OU makes the two. At the time of the decision it wasn't known wheter OU would make the 2 pointer or not.

For your last question my take is this; OU could have scored with a minute left under what happened...but had to drive the entire length of the field to do it. Had OU had the option to kick deep with an 8 point lead maybe they get the ball at the 30-40. Much easier to score. The chance of scoring increased, right?

I would understand much more if Stoops would have simply said "we were going for 2 both times regardless of if we would have made the 1st one for the win. We didn't want to go to OT".

[TopDawg]

Dawg,

The reason people are assuming no/little time left on the clock is that that's the point of a game-ending drive. If OU is down 8, they're going to try to score with time expiring to avoid giving a fired-up home team the chance to win it with a big return or a trick play (remember that they weren't scared to run a few of those, and we know all too well how those have worked out for us on the road in recent years).

I think you're mistaken in assuming that the coaches would use the same strategy in an 8-point game that they use in a 7-point game. If you know that you can win or tie the game (with a simple extra point), then, yeah, you milk the clock. But if you know that you need to convert a 2-point attempt, then I think you leave some time on the clock "just in case."

Plus, it's not exactly easy to milk the clock when you need a touchdown. Most of the time when you see a team milking the clock, it's when they need a FG to tie or win. When you need a TD (and one or two points) you take it when you can get it. If that means you leave a little time on the clock, so be it.

[TUSooner]

Stoops played to get the win [by going for 2 8-pointers, presumably]. It didn't work out, and that sucks... in my opinion, it was the right call every time.

That is a valid approach, Bob gambled and lost, and losing on that play gambled away the game. I can live with that, but, but, but... it does not change the fact that the odds of getting the game to OT are better with the single PAT than the missed deuce.

[jkjsooner]

Well we saw 1 onside kick after missing the 2 point try right? If Stoops felt like he needed an onside there then, unless OU scores in 3 plays or less, he would probably feel he needed another after the score to pull w/in 2. OU only had 1 timeout. If they score quick enough then maybe they can kick it deep and hope you can stop them w/ no first downs. So under this scenario there is 1+ onside kick tries right? We saw one and if they scored possibly had to do another.

Playing for the two later could have resulted in a kick deep...hopefully the same stop as above, punt score, try for two. Make it and no onside is necessary. Miss it and you have to try 1. So under this scenario there is 1 onside kick max and possibly zero if OU makes the two. At the time of the decision it wasn't known wheter OU would make the 2 pointer or not.

For your last question my take is this; OU could have scored with a minute left under what happened...but had to drive the entire length of the field to do it. Had OU had the option to kick deep with an 8 point play maybe they get the ball at the 30-40. Much easier to score. The chance of scoring increased, right?

I would understand much more if Stoops would have simply said "we were going for 2 both times regardless of if we would have made the 1st one for the win. We didn't want to go to OT".

Let me elaborate the scenarios assuming we require 2 onside kicks. It wasn't necessary but since you imply it was then I'll go with your assumption that it was. (We only required one and Stoops chose to do the onside kick early - kinda of analagous to the 2 point conversion choice.)

1. Miss 2 point conversion. Onside kick. Score TD. Onside kick. Field goal.

Since our assumption is we required onside kicks due to time constraints this pretty much uses up the clock.

2. Make 1 point conversion. Kick deep. Hold on defense while Missouri runs the clock. Get the ball and score TD. Miss 2 point conversion. Onside kick. Field goal.

Now, how in the world could we do #2 if we barely had time to do #1? You can't. If you require two onside kicks for #1 then you require two onside kicks for #2.

Here's where we go back to you saying we don't know if we miss the two point conversion in #2 and I say we don't know if we miss it in scenario #1 either.

[MI Sooner]

I'll give the "kick it" crowd the momentum/pressure/morale argument. But the fact that they can't accept that missing a two early is better than missing it late from a planning/strategy perspective just boggles the mind. Yes, if we miss early or late we're up **** creek without a paddle. But I'd rather be six minutes from **** falls than one minute when I lose my paddle. You're probably still screwed, but you just might have time to pull out a miracle.

[TopDawg]

I'll give the "kick it" crowd the momentum/pressure/morale argument. But the fact that they can't accept that missing a two early is better than missing it late from a planning/strategy perspective just boggles the mind. Yes, if we miss early or late we're up **** creek without a paddle. But I'd rather be six minutes from **** falls than one minute when I lose my paddle. You're probably still screwed, but you just might have time to pull out a miracle.

I understand why folks think it's better to miss early than late. But wouldn't you agree that it's better to be down one possession than down by two possessions?

To use your analogy...if you're traveling down **** creek and you know you're approaching the falls and you have to do something (either now or later) that you know might make you lose your paddle, would you rather lose the paddle earlier and have to paddle furiously with your hands for 6 minutes or paddle regularly with your paddle for 5 and then furiously for 1?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

better than up **** creak without a paddle

[jkjsooner]

I'll give the "kick it" crowd the momentum/pressure/morale argument. But the fact that they can't accept that missing a two early is better than missing it late from a planning/strategy perspective just boggles the mind. Yes, if we miss early or late we're up **** creek without a paddle. But I'd rather be six minutes from **** falls than one minute when I lose my paddle. You're probably still screwed, but you just might have time to pull out a miracle.

But, you know you're going to lose your paddle at six minutes but you don't know whether you are going to lose it at one minute because you now have the magical crystal ball.

Seriously, that was a great analogy.

[jkjsooner]

I understand why folks think it's better to miss early than late. But wouldn't you agree that it's better to be down one possession than down by two possessions?

If I may, can I answer it? I'd rather be down by one possession. Now, how is that relevant?

Let me ask a question that is just as relevant. Would you rather be down by 7 or 8?

Both questions are equally absurd as both assume prior knowledge of the results of an event that has not yet occured.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Fail early? Momentum? Neither make sense.

You are coaching a football game. A point after touchdown makes the score 36-28. There are six minutes left. You kick deep and play the rest of the game. Only need one touchdown and two point conversion to tie the game.

If you attempt two and miss, you are screwed because you have to score twice more within six minutes. If you kick deep and your defense holds to a three and out, you've got to score then attempt an onside kick to try to get opportunity for a second score to tie or win.

Plus, if you miss the two point play by mistakenly going for it at 36-27, you certainly don't want to exacerbate the mistake by then attempting an onside kick that will put the other team in position to put the game even further out of reach.

The whole series of decisions was stupid. It's as though Bob Stoops had lost his mind. By not making it a one possession game when he had the opportunity, he made the situation unnecessarily desperate, depending on a whole series of future events to play out in his favor within six minutes.

And, then, after punting the ball when down by two scores...they go through this pitching the ball around thing on the last play of the game and still down by two scores?

It was the most idiotic six minutes of football I've seen in quite some time...although, I'll admit that I haven't watched a down of LSU football this year.

[jkjsooner]

Fail early? Momentum? Neither make sense.

You are coaching a football game. A point after touchdown makes the score 36-28. There are six minutes left. You kick deep and play the rest of the game. Only need one touchdown and two point conversion to tie the game.

If you attempt two and miss, you are screwed because you have to score twice more within six minutes.

Fine, then if you go for two and miss after TD #2 you're just as screwed. Maybe you feel better about yourself because you stayed in the game longer but you're still just as screwed. (Even more screwed really but whatever.)

Frankly, the wimpy way out is to avoid any decision and kick the single point. No coach has ever faced criticism for waiting until TD #2 to go for 2. If you want to minimize criticism, then by all means wait. If you want to maximize the odds of winning then go for 2 the first time.

[jumperstop]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. You're not going to change the others mind...

[soonercastor]

Fine, then if you go for two and miss after TD #2 you're just as screwed. Maybe you feel better about yourself because you stayed in the game longer but you're still just as screwed. (Even more screwed really but whatever.)

Frankly, the wimpy way out is to avoid any decision and kick the single point. No coach has ever faced criticism for waiting until TD #2 to go for 2. If you want to minimize criticism, then by all means wait. If you want to maximize the odds of winning then go for 2 the first time.

Here's is the difference:

1) Miss the 2pt earlier, the game is VIRTUALLY OVER (bet is lost). If you make it you're STILL down a TD
2) Miss the 2pt later, the game is ALSO OVER (bet is lost). However if you make it, then the game is TIED.

possession wise, that missed 2 pt made the TD pretty much IRRELEVANT; And no there was no way we were going to get the ball and score twice after we missed.

[jkjsooner]

Here's is the difference:

1) Miss the 2pt earlier, the game is VIRTUALLY OVER (bet is lost). If you make it you're STILL down a TD
2) Miss the 2pt later, the game is ALSO OVER (bet is lost). However if you make it, then the game is TIED.

possession wise, that missed 2 pt made the TD pretty much IRRELEVANT; And no there was no way we were going to get the ball and score twice after we missed.

Are you implying that the TD is a given in scenario #2? You can't say "you're still down a TD" in one scenario but turn around and imply you get the TD in the other.


one point try, TD, two point try
two point try, TD, one point try


Nobody here has adequately explained why one is more probable than the other. All they've explained is that one gives you a moral victory by staying in the game longer.

None of that takes into the consideration of the altered gameplan after a conversion failure.

Let's play a game. I'll flip a coin 3 times. If I don't get heads on the second flip (the second TD) you lose. On the first and third flip I'll allow you to choose which one you want to count. You have to choose before the flip.

So, if you choose the first you must get heads on the first two flips. Tails on either yields a failure. The outcome of the third flip is irrelevant. It's a gimme (one point conversion).

If you choose the last flip you must get heads on the second and third flip. Tails on either yields a failure. Flip #1 is a gimme.

So, which do you choose? In either case you have a 25% chance of not losing. But WAIT, don't you choose flip #3 so as to stay "in the game as long as possible?" I mean, if you bypass flip #1 you're always still in the game until flip #2.

[jkjsooner]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. You're not going to change the others mind...

I don't care to change anyones mind. I just want these guys to make logical arguments.

We're not talking about political theory here. It's pretty simple scenarios that can be described by a simple game of chance. There are complexities such as momentum, etc. but some of these guys are not going there but instead trying to make it boil down to simple logic but failing the most basic logical reasoning.

At least two have found it perfectly reasonable to assess the situation after a conversion failure and expected Stoops to analyze the situation with prior knowledge of such failure. (No prior knowledge was allowed for the second conversion attempt.)

One just said that on successes in one scenario you still have to score a 2+TD+1 where in the other scenario you just have to score the 1+2 like it's perfectly reasonable to ignore the probability of a TD in one but assume the TD in the other.

I don't know if I want our math department to read this thread or if it would be best if they just ignore it.

[Bruiser53]

I'll chip in my two cents on 2 point conversions, which I believe is the major reasoning behind why Bob Stoops made the decision that he did.
Any more these days in the pros and college, I two point conversion play is a pass play. There are just too many big bodies in the defensive interior guarantee picking up three yards, so unless you have a mobile qb that can get to the outside, two point conversions are pass plays. The trouble with pass plays from the three yard line is that you have 22 players jammed in about 13 yards. The defense is usually staking the box and brining blitzers, so qbs don’t have much time to react. At the same time, receivers have limited time and space to get open, neutralizing a receiver’s effectiveness. Thus a route in the end zone from that close is usually there or it isn’t right off the bat, and that all has to do with the offensive or defensive play calls. So putting those factors together, unless the coaches saw some glaring weakness in a team’s goal line D, converting a two point conversion is no better than a craps shoot at the casino. I would say the offensive team has a 50% chance or worse in situations like this. So suggesting that kicking the PAT for the sake of keeping it a one possession game and the (key word) CHANCE to go for two at the is like playing Texas Hold ‘Em with one of your hole cards face down. Even if you do get a three and out and get the ball back, inevitably you are going to play less urgently because you have taken the position that all you need is a score and a two point conversion than if you would if you knew you still needed two scores, so if and when you miss the two point conversion (and remember you probably won’t make it more than half the time) and you have less time left on the clock because you played like it was a one score game, you are SOL. Everyone brings up momentum, but you think the team would have lost some momentum after missing the two point conversion at the end of the game going into the onside kick. Hell, in our game, if we let the ball roll another foot, we recover the onside kick and momentum is back on our side (this is more to do with execution than anything else). But because a two point conversion is far from a guarantee, going for two earlier swings it from an end of the game crap shoot to a situation where the coaches are more in control of the team’s destiny. And for that reason I think it was the right call and I hope Bob does it again if he has to.

[cmoneyou]

Where is the evidence that coaches go for 1 in this situation rather than 2? People like to make this claim yet they only cite time when coaches go for 2 instead of 1. I am not saying either is a good argument I just don't know where this idea comes from. The conversion chart says go for 2 and the only games cited the coaches went for 2 yet people think NFL coaches always go for 1 there. Dennis Green went for 2 early coaching the cardinals a few years ago. I'm pretty sure it was the super bowl game.

[TUSooner]

I don't care to change anyones mind. I just want these guys to make logical arguments.

We're not talking about political theory here. It's pretty simple scenarios that can be described by a simple game of chance. There are complexities such as momentum, etc. but some of these guys are not going there but instead trying to make it boil down to simple logic but failing the most basic logical reasoning.

At least two have found it perfectly reasonable to assess the situation after a conversion failure and expected Stoops to analyze the situation with prior knowledge of such failure. (No prior knowledge was allowed for the second conversion attempt.)

One just said that on successes in one scenario you still have to score a 2+TD+1 where in the other scenario you just have to score the 1+2 like it's perfectly reasonable to ignore the probability of a TD in one but assume the TD in the other.

I don't know if I want our math department to read this thread or if it would be best if they just ignore it.

You're the one that keeps ignoring the obvious. You have better odds of tieing the game with 8 points to make (1 possession) than with 9 to make (2 possession). Of course if you make the deuce, you only need 7 more, but it's the risk vs the reward that matters, because once you miss, your chances are gone, because you are so very unlikely to get 2 more chances to score. And even if you make the deuce you still need at least a TD. As far as I know, you still rely on some phantom - and yet to be explained -- game plan "adjustments" that will somehow get you 2 possessions where there's bare;y time for one. You talk about logic, but you have never explained why logic dictates the deuce, and you have never shown why it is just as easy to get 9 as 8. You must be pulling OUr legs because there is no "logic" or science of probability behind your deus ex machina miracle adjustment solution. Or are you changing your rationale to something even less comprehensible. You offer nothing.

[soonerbub]

This should be a pole people!!!

[TopDawg]

I don't care to change anyones mind. I just want these guys to make logical arguments.

Since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success in either scenario, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor. The decision should be "in which scenario do I have the best chance of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game" because THAT will be the most critical determining factor in how the rest of the game is played out.

You seem to think "If we miss we have more time to change our gameplan accordingly" is a better determining factor. That seems to communicate that your decision is based on a conditional factor whereas mine is not. Mine is based on the actual fact that our chances of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game is better in a one-possession game than in a two-possession game. The chances of making the 2-point conversion are equal (arguably) in either scenario but the chances of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game are vastly different and that will have a huge impact on the way the last 6 minutes go.

If I may anticipate one of your objections, once the two-point conversion is missed, then we need two scores in the "go for two early" scenario to win the game or one score in the "go for two late" scenario. I will grant that in either scenario, once you've scored the TD and proceeded with the point after attempt that gets you to within 2, the chances of getting the ball back with a chance to win the game are virtually the same (it's going to require an onside kick late in the game). But the time in between the missed 2-point conversion and the possession where you have a chance to win the game is spent MUCH differently in the two scenarios. I think it plays out much more to the trailing team's advantage if the game is a one-possession game during that time. Do you disagree?

[cmoneyou]

Since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success in either scenario, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor. The decision should be "in which scenario do I have the best chance of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game" because THAT will be the most critical determining factor in how the rest of the game is played out.

You seem to think "If we miss we have more time to change our gameplan accordingly" is a better determining factor. That seems to communicate that your decision is based on a conditional factor whereas mine is not. Mine is based on the actual fact that our chances of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game is better in a one-possession game than in a two-possession game. The chances of making the 2-point conversion are equal (arguably) in either scenario but the chances of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game are vastly different and that will have a huge impact on the way the last 6 minutes go.

If I may anticipate one of your objections, once the two-point conversion is missed, then we need two scores in the "go for two early" scenario to win the game or one score in the "go for two late" scenario. I will grant that in either scenario, once you've scored the TD and proceeded with the point after attempt that gets you to within 2, the chances of getting the ball back with a chance to win the game are virtually the same (it's going to require an onside kick late in the game). But the time in between the missed 2-point conversion and the possession where you have a chance to win the game is spent MUCH differently in the two scenarios. I think it plays out much more to the trailing team's advantage if the game is a one-possession game during that time. Do you disagree?

You speak of a chance to tie but ignore the possibility of a chance to win. Going for two early gives you a chance to win with just one possession. The odds of being able to tie with one possession are the same if you go for it early or late.

Probability of making xp on 1st td x prob. of making 2pt on 2nd is the same as probability of making 2 pt first x prob of making xp on 2nd td.

[TopDawg]

But because a two point conversion is far from a guarantee, going for two earlier swings it from an end of the game crap shoot to a situation where the coaches are more in control of the team’s destiny. And for that reason I think it was the right call and I hope Bob does it again if he has to.

It swings it from an end of the game crap shoot to a "6-minutes left in the game" crap shoot. Either way (if you miss the two-point conversion) you're going to need an onside kick late in the game to win it. At least if you make it a one-possession game at the 6-minute mark, you're putting some pressure on the other team. You can apply that pressure to them immediately by kicking the extra point, or you can wait until your defense has stopped them and your offense has gone down and scored and you've kicked the onside kick and recovered it before applying pressure to them.

All the while knowing that your offense and defense (if you don't recover two onside kicks) were playing under pressure because they knew they needed 2 scores in 6 minutes to win the game.

[cmoneyou]

It swings it from an end of the game crap shoot to a "6-minutes left in the game" crap shoot. Either way (if you miss the two-point conversion) you're going to need an onside kick late in the game to win it. At least if you make it a one-possession game at the 6-minute mark, you're putting some pressure on the other team. You can apply that pressure to them immediately by kicking the extra point, or you can wait until your defense has stopped them and your offense has gone down and scored and you've kicked the onside kick and recovered it before applying pressure to them.

All the while knowing that your offense and defense (if you don't recover two onside kicks) were playing under pressure because they knew they needed 2 scores in 6 minutes to win the game.

Is there not pressure on the other team with 6 minutes to go? There is still plenty of time for a team to lose leading by 9 with 6 minutes to go. I will concede that the pressures may not be the same, but neither of us can make the claim how much more pressure would be on a team or how much it would affect them.

[TopDawg]

You speak of a chance to tie but ignore the possibility of a chance to win. Going for two early gives you a chance to win with just one possession. The odds of being able to tie with one possession are the same if you go for it early or late.

Sure, if you go for two twice you have a chance to win the game. If Bob would've said that's why he did it, I wouldn't believe him, but at least his decision would've made sense.


Probability of making xp on 1st td x prob. of making 2pt on 2nd is the same as probability of making 2 pt first x prob of making xp on 2nd td.

Exactly! So probability of making the conversions isn't a good reason to decide. What is? The likelihood of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game. And in which scenario is that probability the highest? xp on 1st TD.

You people are kidding yourselves if you don't think that being in a one possession game totally affects the rest of the game and affects it in favor of the team that is trailing. They are in a MUCH better situation trailing by one possession than trailing by two. And what situation are they in if they miss the 2-point conversion late? Well, basically the same situation they are in with the other scenario once they've scored the TD or FG that makes it a one-possession game (needing an onside kick late to win the game).

[TopDawg]

I will concede that the pressures may not be the same, but neither of us can make the claim how much more pressure would be on a team or how much it would affect them.

So which would you opt for...

More pressure on yourself and less on your opponent
or
More pressure on your opponent and less on yourself

[cmoneyou]

Sure, if you go for two twice you have a chance to win the game. If Bob would've said that's why he did it, I wouldn't believe him, but at least his decision would've made sense.



Exactly! So probability of making the conversions isn't a good reason to decide. What is? The likelihood of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game. And in which scenario is that probability the highest? xp on 1st TD.

You people are kidding yourselves if you don't think that being in a one possession game totally affects the rest of the game and affects it in favor of the team that is trailing. They are in a MUCH better situation trailing by one possession than trailing by two. And what situation are they in if they miss the 2-point conversion late? Well, basically the same situation they are in with the other scenario once they've scored the TD or FG that makes it a one-possession game (needing an onside kick late to win the game).

If you agree that the probabilities are the same then you understand that in reality being down 8 is only truly a one possession game 45 or so percent of the time. So you can either know exactly if it is a one or two possession game with 6 minutes or you can rely on the hope that it will one possession 45 percent of the time.

I repeat, in reallity an 8 point deficit is only tied 45 percent of the time.

[cmoneyou]

So which would you opt for...

More pressure on yourself and less on your opponent
or
More pressure on your opponent and less on yourself

Which do you prefer being down 8 or 7? See how one question doesn't really work in this situation.

[Blue]

Are you implying that the TD is a given in scenario #2? You can't say "you're still down a TD" in one scenario but turn around and imply you get the TD in the other.


one point try, TD, two point try
two point try, TD, one point try


Nobody here has adequately explained why one is more probable than the other. All they've explained is that one gives you a moral victory by staying in the game longer.

None of that takes into the consideration of the altered gameplan after a conversion failure.

Let's play a game. I'll flip a coin 3 times. If I don't get heads on the second flip (the second TD) you lose. On the first and third flip I'll allow you to choose which one you want to count. You have to choose before the flip.

So, if you choose the first you must get heads on the first two flips. Tails on either yields a failure. The outcome of the third flip is irrelevant. It's a gimme (one point conversion).

If you choose the last flip you must get heads on the second and third flip. Tails on either yields a failure. Flip #1 is a gimme.

So, which do you choose? In either case you have a 25% chance of not losing. But WAIT, don't you choose flip #3 so as to stay "in the game as long as possible?" I mean, if you bypass flip #1 you're always still in the game until flip #2.

Because it puts all the pressure on Mizzou not to give us the ball back! They call more conservative plays, they try to milk the clock, they feel the pressure not to give us the ball back!!

Down by 9, our players quit and they did whatever they wanted. Damn. Do you watch football? It was a stupid call.

[Blue]

Gameday Final is crap and good thing we don't play in the NFL. How the hell can "the NFL" agree? What does that even mean? Not saying that's what I would have done, maybe or maybe not I'm not a coach. I understand where Stoops is coming from though and really at this point, it doesn't ****ing matter. It's what Stoops chose to do, sitting here crying about it ain't going to help.

Meaning 30 out of 30 NFL head coaches would have done the opposite of what our coaches did.

[cmoneyou]

Because it puts all the pressure on Mizzou not to give us the ball back! They call more conservative plays, they try to milk the clock, they feel the pressure not to give us the ball back!!

Down by 9, our players quit and they did whatever they wanted. Damn. Do you watch football? It was a stupid call.

So Mizzou only feels pressure to not give the ball back down 8 and not 9? The players didn't appear to quit since they nearly recovered an onside kick then they made a stop to get the ball back.

[cmoneyou]

Meaning 30 out of 30 NFL head coaches would have done the opposite of what our coaches did.

That disagrees with the conversion chart so please provide an example where it happened.

[MI Sooner]

jkjsooner, keep fighting the good fight.

It's frustrating arguing with logic fail.

[Blue]

So Mizzou only feels pressure to not give the ball back down 8 and not 9? The players didn't appear to quit since they nearly recovered an onside kick then they made a stop to get the ball back.

Much more pressure for Mizzou down 8 than down 9, yes.

[Blue]

jkjsooner, keep fighting the good fight.

It's frustrating arguing with logic fail.

Yes please tell that to every other coach and 95% of the fans. We're all wrong and you two are right.

[Blue]

That disagrees with the conversion chart so please provide an example where it happened.

Where's the conversion chart?

It happens nearly every weekend. You want to get within a score and worry with the two when its time to tie. I guarantee if you polled the 30 NFL coaches nearly everyone would disagree with that call. Hell, Lou Holtz and R Davis were dumbfounded at the call. (Not saying they are the authority, but it seems pretty obvious)

[cmoneyou]

Where's the conversion chart?

It happens nearly every weekend. You want to get within a score and worry with the two when its time to tie. I guarantee if you polled the 30 NFL coaches nearly everyone would disagree with that call. Hell, Lou Holtz and R Davis were dumbfounded at the call. (Not saying they are the authority, but it seems pretty obvious)

http://tinyurl.com/2cjcg62 Once again you say it happens all the time but you cannot provide a single instance that it happened.

[cmoneyou]

Yes please tell that to every other coach and 95% of the fans. We're all wrong and you two are right.

Dick Vermeil agrees. http://www.theredzone.org/Features/TwoPointConversionChart.aspx

[Blue]

http://tinyurl.com/2cjcg62 Once again you say it happens all the time but you cannot provide a single instance that it happened.

I don't remember every single game and which game had what. All I know is that I watch alot of football and that call is rarely if ever made. Why don't you keep watching and see if you ever see something like that again. My bet is that it will be awhile.

Or maybe provide me an example of when a coach did exactly what we did going for 2 down 9. Cmon give me an example. Give me an example...:rolleyes:

[Boooom!]

The problem with a 2 point conversion is that if you do not make it, all the momentum switches to the other team. At that point we had them in "aw'oh!" mode...knowing we were not going away and we still had an opportunity. After we missed the 2 pt., game set match....Mizzo know it and their fans knew it.

Momentum in a game can be worth more then 2 fifty yard runs, and a few 10 yard penalties.

[soonercastor]

That disagrees with the conversion chart so please provide an example where it happened.

the conversion chart you provided says, you go for it if u have a 0.4+ probability of making the 2 point conv. Do you think we make more than 40% of our 2-pt conversions?

[jkjsooner]

Since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success in either scenario, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor.

You guys keep making this statement but you give no rational or statistical argument to support it.

Since you guys are all convinced that a conversion failure = loss, again I ask why is one more probable than the other?

1. 2 + TD + 1
2. 1 + TD + 2

[soonercastor]

You guys keep making this statement but you give no rational or statistical argument to support it.

Since you guys are all convinced that a conversion failure = loss, again I ask why is one more probable than the other?

1. 2 + TD + 1
2. 1 + TD + 2

of course its the same, but obviously you CANNOT ignore EMOTIONS in a college football game; put that doubt in their heads.

[cvsooner]

My opinion: I think Stoops felt the D was gassed and his chances were better with the offense owning the ball. Clearly going for the onside kick was probably a given regardless of outcome on the conversion. Both plays nearly worked.

Kicking the point after is the easier make, and was probably a smarter call. But not the way our D played in the fourth. And as it turned out, the O wasn't playing all that well either. I think he was probably trying to turn the tide with momentum changers. Make the 2 points and get the onside kick...would've been huge.

[Blue]

My opinion: I think Stoops felt the D was gassed and his chances were better with the offense owning the ball. Clearly going for the onside kick was probably a given regardless of outcome on the conversion. Both plays nearly worked.

Kicking the point after is the easier make, and was probably a smarter call. But not the way our D played in the fourth. And as it turned out, the O wasn't playing all that well either. I think he was probably trying to turn the tide with momentum changers. Make the 2 points and get the onside kick...would've been huge.

I can buy that.

[cmoneyou]

I don't remember every single game and which game had what. All I know is that I watch alot of football and that call is rarely if ever made. Why don't you keep watching and see if you ever see something like that again. My bet is that it will be awhile.

Or maybe provide me an example of when a coach did exactly what we did going for 2 down 9. Cmon give me an example. Give me an example...:rolleyes:

Bob stoops lol. And apparently John blake.

Edit: It was OU/Colorado in 1998

[cmoneyou]

The problem with a 2 point conversion is that if you do not make it, all the momentum switches to the other team. At that point we had them in "aw'oh!" mode...knowing we were not going away and we still had an opportunity. After we missed the 2 pt., game set match....Mizzo know it and their fans knew it.

Momentum in a game can be worth more then 2 fifty yard runs, and a few 10 yard penalties.

you want to talk momentum lets talk momentum. Did MU have the momentum when they fumbled the punt? Did they have the momentum when Madu returned the kick so far? Did OU have the momentum when they threw the pick in the red zone? Momentum is important, but it isn't the end all and be all. Plus it only takes one play to over come and switch.

[soonercastor]

Plus it only takes one play to over come and switch.

yep just like the failed 2 pt conversion did

[cmoneyou]

yep just like the failed 2 pt conversion did

Right, so did that momentum keep ou from getting the ball back?

[soonercastor]

Right, so did that momentum keep ou from getting the ball back?

lol by that time the outcome of the game was a foregone conclusion

[cmoneyou]

lol by that time the outcome of the game was a foregone conclusion

Really? No team can win down 9 with 3 plus minutes left in the game? You would make a great coach telling the players to just quit in those situations. I guess stoops should have just knelt the ball then.

[soonercastor]

Really? No team can win down 9 with 3 plus minutes left in the game? You would make a great coach telling the players to just quit in those situations. I guess stoops should have just knelt the ball then.

he pretty much did that by punting the ball...

[cmoneyou]

he pretty much did that by punting the ball...

did he punt on first down?

[jkjsooner]

I don't remember every single game and which game had what. All I know is that I watch alot of football and that call is rarely if ever made. Why don't you keep watching and see if you ever see something like that again. My bet is that it will be awhile.

Or maybe provide me an example of when a coach did exactly what we did going for 2 down 9. Cmon give me an example. Give me an example...:rolleyes:

I don't remember the game but it happened a few weeks ago in the nfl. I wish I remembered which game it was.

[soonercastor]

did he punt on first down?

No but as you mentioned in your previous message; you wouldn't call that "quitting"?

[cmoneyou]

No but as you mentioned in your previous message; you wouldn't call that "quitting"?

I agree he quit with the punt, but he didn't quit when he got the ball back. I disagree with the punt, I don't like seeing teams give up.

[jkjsooner]

Because it puts all the pressure on Mizzou not to give us the ball back! They call more conservative plays, they try to milk the clock, they feel the pressure not to give us the ball back!!

Down by 9, our players quit and they did whatever they wanted. Damn. Do you watch football? It was a stupid call.

The context of what I was saying dealt with those who said there is no opportunity for two scores. They say two point failure = loss no matter when it is attempted.

In that context, the emotional impact of failing on the early 2 point conversion is irrelevant as the assumption was that the game is essentially over at that point.

In fact, as it boils down to 1+TD+2 vs 2+TD+1, if you take the second option you've remove negative impacts of a failed attempt from the game since the game is over after a failure. You've kept the positive momentum impacts of a two point success.

One caveat to all of this is whether the probability of a conversion differs in these two cases. I have argued that doing it first when it isn't absolutely required would yield a higher probability of success than doing it when it is absolutely required.

Again, all this is based on the absurd assumption that there is no opportunity for two additional scores. I didn't make this assumption/assertion but I will accept that assumption for argument's sake.

[Blue]

I don't remember the game but it happened a few weeks ago in the nfl. I wish I remembered which game it was.

Was wade Phillips the coach? ;) :D

Seriously. i could be wrong here. It just didn't make sense to me personally.

I love our coaches and I know they're not perfect.

[cmoneyou]

Was wade Phillips the coach? ;) :D

Seriously. i could be wrong here. It just didn't make sense to me personally.

I love our coaches and I know they're not perfect.

I think we can all agree that being down 15 probably caused more harm than the decision made after that. I guess we can be glad we have a coach that doesn't fear for his job every decision he makes. O

[nighttrain12]

If Stoops said after the game, I was going to go for 2 after each of the (hopefully) next 2 TD's and try to win it by one point by making it both times, then I could have followed that logic. Too bad he went with the 'had to get two points sometime' argument as he ignores the effect of possibly missing it the first time (you still need two scores including a FG with a crappy kicker).

[cmoneyou]

If Stoops said after the game, I was going to go for 2 after each of the (hopefully) next 2 TD's and try to win it by one point by making it both times, then I could have followed that logic. Too bad he went with the 'had to get two points sometime' argument as he ignores the effect of possibly missing it the first time (you still need two scores including a FG with a crappy kicker).

The chances of needing two scores is the same regardless of when you go for 2.

[jkjsooner]

The chances of needing two scores is the same regardless of when you go for 2.

Exactly, but I'm starting to doubt that these guys are ever going to get it.

[TUSooner]

The elaborate speculation that the go-for-2-firsters pass off as logic in this thread is astonishing. And all because it's evidently considered heresy to say Bob got it wrong. <shakes head sadly>

[cmoneyou]

The elaborate speculation that the go-for-2-firsters pass off as logic in this thread is astonishing. And all because it's evidently considered heresy to say Bob got it wrong. <shakes head sadly>

Speculation right there. The logic is solid, regardless of the head coach.

[TUSooner]

It's all about probabilities, and risk vs reward.

You trail by 15. You score 6.
If you go for 2 and make it, then you have saved yourself going for 2 if you get the ball back and score another TD (or you can go for 2 for the win). OK that's a pretty fair reward, but what of the risk?

If you miss, then you need to have 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives. With only 6 minutes and 1 timeout, the odds of getting this done are very slim. I propose that the risk of failure therefore exceeds the reward of success, based on the slim chance of recovering from the failure. If you disagree, what's your basis? An attractive likelihood of 2 more scores? Methinks not. Read on.

OTOH-- If you kick the PAT, you need another TD, plus a deuce. Is it more likely to get that than to get 2 more possessions? I think-guess-wager that historical odds will say that getting 6+2 is considerably more likely than getting 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives, with 6 rapidly vanishing minutes and 1 timeout remainig. Of course if you miss the 2nd one, you're screwed anyway.
But the key concept here is still the logical "probability" of success.

The only way to say that going for 2 is "logical" is to believe that you have just as good a chance of getting the ball back twice and scoring twice than you do of getting a 6+2, with 6 minutes and 1 TO.

This analysis doesn't rely on speculation or guarantees, or "momentum", it relies on raw mathematical probabilities. That, my stubborn friends, is as close to a purely logical and mathematical analysis as you can get, at least it's as close as I can get. You may disagree, of course, but your disagreement will not be based on logical, mathematical probabilities.

As for Verneil's rule that you go for 2 when down by 9, that makes sense if you have more than 6 minutes or more than 1 time-out remaining.

To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+2 in the same short time. I do not think the historical odds will support that proposition.

Now, to paraphrase Dr. Samuel Johnson: I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to compel you to understand it.

PS - This doesn't address the evanescent logic of punting when in need of 2 scores, or the pure silliness of the rugby-panic play with 9 points needed and 2 seconds on the clock. Even Les Miles couldn't explain those decisions.

[cmoneyou]

It's all about probabilities, and risk vs reward.

You trail by 15. You score 6.
If you go for 2 and make it, then you have saved yourself going for 2 if you get the ball back and score another TD (or you can go for 2 for the win). OK that's a pretty fair reward, but what of the risk?

If you miss, then you need to have 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives. With only 6 minutes and 1 timeout, the odds of getting this done are very slim. I propose that the risk of failure therefore exceeds the reward of success, based on the slim chance of recovering from the failure. If you disagree, what's your basis? An attractive likelihood of 2 more scores? Methinks not. Read on.

OTOH-- If you kick the PAT, you need another TD, plus a deuce. Is it more likely to get that than to get 2 more possessions? I think-guess-wager that historical odds will say that getting 6+2 is considerably more likely than getting 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives, with 6 rapidly vanishing minutes and 1 timeout remainig. Of course if you miss the 2nd one, you're screwed anyway.
But the key concept here is still the logical "probability" of success.

The only way to say that going for 2 is "logical" is to believe that you have just as good a chance of getting the ball back twice and scoring twice than you do of getting a 6+2, with 6 minutes and 1 TO.

This analysis doesn't rely on speculation or guarantees, or "momentum", it relies on raw mathematical probabilities. That, my stubborn friends, is as close to a purely logical and mathematical analysis as you can get, at least it's as close as I can get. You may disagree, of course, but your disagreement will not be based on logical, mathematical probabilities.

As for Verneil's rule that you go for 2 when down by 9, that makes sense if you have more than 6 minutes or more than 1 time-out remaining.

To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+2 in the same short time. I do not think the historical odds will support that proposition.

Now, to paraphrase Dr. Samuel Johnson: I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to compel you to understand it.

PS - This doesn't address the evanescent logic of punting when in need of 2 scores, or the pure silliness of the rugby-panic play with 9 points needed and 2 seconds on the clock. Even Les Miles couldn't explain those decisions.

Are you arguing that getting the 2 point at the end of the game is easier than getting it earlier in the game?

[cmoneyou]

If you are not arguing that it is easier to get the two point late rather than early, then maybe you understand that the chances you will need 2 possessions doesn't change depending on when you go for 2.

[Blue]

Add Mike Torico to the list of those that think you don't go for two until you absolutely need it. he just said it on MNF.

[OU Engineer]

Add Mike Torico to the list of those that think you don't go for two until you absolutely need it. he just said it on MNF.

I apologize for the new thread I just started regarding this exact quote

[cmoneyou]

Add Mike Torico to the list of those that think you don't go for two until you absolutely need it. he just said it on MNF.

What evidence does anyone have that this is the right thing to do? Should the coaching staff hire tirico to make all further decisions?

[King Barry's Back]

I didn't want to read ANYTHING on the internet about this game but I did have to come here to find out what happened with this play call.

Just like taking defense if you win the coin toss in OT, it is basic coaching; it's not debateable. In this case you kick the extra point and go for two later.

No one has given a good reason why we went for two early. There has to be a "special" consideration.

Did we not trust our kicking that much? Was there a no fail goal line play we had practiced well?

I love this post. We've got a whole thread of people debating whether the 2-pt try was the right call, and someone comes on and says "It's not debatable."

[Sooner98]

A somewhat similar situation just happened in the Cowboys/Giants game: the Cowboys were down by 18 with 3 or 4 minutes left, meaning, they needed a field goal and two touchdowns, including one two-point conversion. Dez Bryant catches a touchdown, which puts them down by 12. The decision then was: do we kick the PAT now to pull within 11, and then rely on a FG+TD+2-point conversion later to tie, or do we go for two now, and only need a FG+TD to tie. The decision was to go ahead and go for two, which they did end up converting, to pull within 10.

Was this the right decision? I honestly don't think there's much difference between the two. Either way, you still need two TDs, plus a two-point conversion. Whether or not you get the two-pointer now or later doesn't really matter. The real thing we as fans should be chapped about is why we punted the ball away with over 2 minutes to go. :confused:

[cmoneyou]

A somewhat similar situation just happened in the Cowboys/Giants game: the Cowboys were down by 18 with 3 or 4 minutes left, meaning, they needed a field goal and two touchdowns, including one two-point conversion. Dez Bryant catches a touchdown, which puts them down by 12. The decision then was: do we kick the PAT now to pull within 11, and then rely on a FG+TD+2-point conversion later to tie, or do we go for two now, and only need a FG+TD to tie. The decision was to go ahead and go for two, which they did end up converting, to pull within 10.

Was this the right decision? I honestly don't think there's much difference between the two. Either way, you still need two TDs, plus a two-point conversion. Whether or not you get the two-pointer now or later doesn't really matter. The real thing we as fans should be chapped about is why we punted the ball away with over 2 minutes to go. :confused:

this

[soonercastor]

well obviously its not the same situation, because here regardless of 2pt conv or PAT you still need TWO possessions; albeit in the first case the two possessions are FG+TD.

[Tear Down This Wall]

My opinion: I think Stoops felt the D was gassed and his chances were better with the offense owning the ball. Clearly going for the onside kick was probably a given regardless of outcome on the conversion. Both plays nearly worked.

Kicking the point after is the easier make, and was probably a smarter call. But not the way our D played in the fourth. And as it turned out, the O wasn't playing all that well either. I think he was probably trying to turn the tide with momentum changers. Make the 2 points and get the onside kick...would've been huge.

So, it's smarter to gamble on keeping the game at a two possession game then risk giving the Missouri team you can't stop the ball closer to the end zone if you don't recover an onside kick?

No. Sorry. There are six minutes left in the game. Kick your PAT. The game is down to one possesion. Kick deep. Play defense with Missouri as far away from scoring as possible. This isn't reinventing the wheel...as Bob Stoops tried to do.

[there there]

To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+2 in the same short time. I do not think the historical odds will support that proposition.


No. To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+0 in the same short time and then score again without knowing you were going to need to.

It's already been said many times but I'll repeat it. If you're going to argue what is the best decision logically, you need to assume the odds of the 2 point conversion are the same whether you go for it after either td.

If the conversion is successful it doesn't really matter which time you went for it. Some people have said Mizzou would have been more conservative if they were up 8 and this would benefit us, but OTOH you could also argue getting the conversion and cutting it to 7 would give us momentum. It is too hard to quantify that though so I am going to assume it doesn't really matter.

If you don't get the conversion I think it is better to know early. It may only be a slight advantage but I do think it was the right decision to go for it when we did. The argument that we should have waited to go for it because it is better to only be down by 1 score (8 vs 9 points) is invalid. This argument assumes that we would get the conversion if we wait and that we fail if we go for it early.

Stoops had a decision to make and I think he made the logical one. It goes against the conventional wisdom of only going for two when you have to, but the reason you usually wait is because you don't know how the rest of game will play out with regard to the other team scoring. That wasn't the case in our game.

I was more surprised when we did the onside than when we went for two. I'm not saying it was the wrong call but at the time I assumed we would kick it deep and try to get a stop followed by a combo of td, fg, and onside.

Some people have argued Stoops made the wrong call going for 2 because it forced us to kick two onsides but I don't think that is true. Like I said, I thought we could have waited for the onside, but if the first was successful and we went down and scored fast we wouldn't have needed a second one. There could have been enough time left to kick it deep after that. I'm not saying we definitely wouldn't have needed another one, but think we can all agree OU can score fast enough that this is a good possibility.

[TUSooner]

What evidence does anyone have that this is the right thing to do? Should the coaching staff hire tirico to make all further decisions?

He read my post, of course!

[TUSooner]

To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+0 in the same short time and then score again without knowing you were going to need to.
<sigh> That's just irrelevant unless knowledge puts time on the clock, which of course it doesn't. The game will end while you continue to speculate. Get over the delusional idea that there is some sort of magical game plan adjustment that will allow you to score twice if you know "you were going to need to."

How many trolls does jkj have anyway? :D

[TUSooner]

So, it's smarter to gamble on keeping the game at a two possession game then risk giving the Missouri team you can't stop the ball closer to the end zone if you don't recover an onside kick?

No. Sorry. There are six minutes left in the game. Kick your PAT. The game is down to one possesion. Kick deep. Play defense with Missouri as far away from scoring as possible. This isn't reinventing the wheel...as Bob Stoops tried to do.

Thank you. The correct answer is the simple one in this case.

[jkjsooner]

Are you arguing that getting the 2 point at the end of the game is easier than getting it earlier in the game?

No, he's back to using his crystal ball that assumes the first two point conversion is a failure.

TU, seriously, you fail at probability. I've tried to make it as simple as possible.

It is not appropriate to do a probability analysis after assuming the first two point conversion has failed. The decision is made before the first two point conversion so you have to use the various sequence of events that can occur at that point. On such sequence of events includes a successful two point try at that point.

You're argument boils down to a comparison of getting 1 point after the first TD and getting 0 points after it. There is not a single person here who thinks getting 0 points is better than 1.


My goodness. Either you have really confused yourself or you simply do not have an analytical mind.

[jkjsooner]

A somewhat similar situation just happened in the Cowboys/Giants game: the Cowboys were down by 18 with 3 or 4 minutes left, meaning, they needed a field goal and two touchdowns, including one two-point conversion. Dez Bryant catches a touchdown, which puts them down by 12. The decision then was: do we kick the PAT now to pull within 11, and then rely on a FG+TD+2-point conversion later to tie, or do we go for two now, and only need a FG+TD to tie. The decision was to go ahead and go for two, which they did end up converting, to pull within 10.


You lie. No NFL coach has ever made that decision. I was delusional when I saw it in a different NFL game a few weeks ago. You are delusional. It can't happen. Only coach Stoops is dumb enough to do that. (/sarcasm)

[C&CDean]

I can see this thread is going nowhere but in a circle.

[TopDawg]

Since we can't know whether or not the 2-point conversion will be a success in either scenario, I say that the odds of getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game SHOULD be the determining factor.


You guys keep making this statement but you give no rational or statistical argument to support it.

What kind of rational or statistical argument are you looking for? Are you claiming that you are just as likely to get the ball back with a chance to tie the game down by two possessions instead of down by just one?

[rekamrettuB]

You lie. No NFL coach has ever made that decision. I was delusional when I saw it in a different NFL game a few weeks ago. You are delusional. It can't happen. Only coach Stoops is dumb enough to do that. (/sarcasm)

So your source now is Wade Phillips? Not exactly the best example. John Gruden most definitely disagreed with it. His quote, which is almost identical to all the "go for 2 later" guys, was "you always wait to go for 2 until you absolutely have to".

I'll defer to Gruden over Wade Phillips every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[jkjsooner]

Some people have argued Stoops made the wrong call going for 2 because it forced us to kick two onsides but I don't think that is true.

Off topic but it wasn't true. We most likely only needed one onside kick. The fact that Stoops kicked it first does not prove that we needed two of them. There is a strong reason to kick it first if you only need to do it once.


If you wait the defense knows the onside kick is coming. It's a huge advantage to do it when they're not 100% sure it is coming.
If you do it first, you can still make a stop and force a punt. Then you can try it again after you score a TD. If you wait, you only get one chance at the onside kick.


Now I wait for this response from TU. "Are you saying it's easier to hold the other team from the 50, force a punt, score a TD, and get an onside kick than it is to hold the other team from their own 20, force a punt, score a TD, and get an onside kick."

See, because TU has some magical future prediction machine that assumes an onside kick will fail.

[jkjsooner]

What kind of rational or statistical argument are you looking for? Are you claiming that you are just as likely to get the ball back with a chance to tie the game down by two possessions instead of down by just one?

Now I'm wondering if you guys are just messing with us. Using average conversion rates, here it is:

40% chance you get the ball down by 7 points
60% chance you get the ball down by 9 points

You're making an argument as if it is 0% we're down by 7 and 100% we're down by 9. You fail this probability test.

[TopDawg]

Some of you people seem obsessed with communicating the idea that the 2 point conversion is just as likely after the first as it is after the second despite the fact that nobody is arguing against that.

What I am saying is that you play to keep the game one possession. Why? Because that is the single most influential factor on how the rest of the game will play out. You have so many more factors in your favor when down by one possession than when down by two.

And if you miss the 2-point conversion in the "go for it later" scenario...well you're no worse off than you were in the "go for it early" scenario. In both you're going to need an onside kick recovery and score with very little time on the clock.

If you claim that you're going to have more time on the clock if you go for two earlier...isn't that just crystal ball logic?

[jkjsooner]

"you always wait to go for 2 until you absolutely have to".

Again, give me a rationale why this is true. Just because it's something that gets repeated over and over doesn't mean it is the right choice.

90% of the people who repeat this couldn't pass an elementary probability test. They simply repeat it because it sound right even though any mathematical analysis would show you that it isn't true.

I don't know Gruden's educational background. I know he's a great coach but that has a lot more to do with finding and developing talent and executing a gameplan than it has to do with knowing the probabilities of success (meaning ultimately winning the game) when going for two after TD#1 or TD#2.

Either way, the point was made that no NFL coach would make the same choice as Stoops. We know of two games in the last few weeks where they did just that. We also know that the most used conversion chart (developed by someone who became a very successful NFL coach) shows to go for two when down by 9 late in the game.

[TUSooner]

Ok, one last swing at the tar baby :D

No, he's back to using his crystal ball that assumes the first two point conversion is a failure. [Not so; read what I wrote, not what you wish I'd written.]

TU, seriously, you fail at probability. I've tried to make it as simple as possible.

It is not appropriate to do a probability analysis after assuming the first two point conversion has failed. [Dood, That possibility is essential to the analysis of the reward of success versus RISK OF FAILURE.] The decision is made before the first two point conversion so you have to use the various sequence of events that can occur at that point. On such sequence of events includes a successful two point try at that point. [I have addressed that possibility.]

You're argument boils down to a comparison of getting 1 point after the first TD and getting 0 points after it. There is not a single person here who thinks getting 0 points is better than 1. [You misrepresent again, because you have not read what I wrote.]

My goodness. Either you have really confused yourself or you simply do not have an analytical mind.[Or maybe you are wilfully obtuse. Yeah, that's it.]

I guess I win, because now you're just making stuff up.

I made it simple, but you have to keep adding irrelevant nonsense. First you assert that you can increase the chance of recovery by failing sooner (regardless of the time element), and now you misrepresent me.

My post (reprinted below so you can read it for the first time) covers every situation from making the 2 (good) to not making it (the worst). You have meticulously avoided addressing the simplest issue, which is that, IF you miss, you have less likelihood of scoring twice than you do of getting the 6+2 in one possession. You just pretend that the question is not important.

Bottom Line: Do you think that the benefit of making the 2 outweighs the risk of not making it? To answer that, you must also ask whether a team is more likley to score a 6+2 in one possession than scoring 7+3 in two possessions, with 6 minutes to go and 1 timeout [which happens IF you miss]. And don't forget there's a kickoff to the other team pending. Of course, if you disregard the risk of missing the 2, you can make up whatever fairy tales you want, as you know.

Those are simple question, for which your response is to change the subject.
Your chimerical arguments show no grasp probable risk versus probable reward.


It's all about probabilities, and risk vs reward.

You trail by 15. You score 6.
If you go for 2 and make it, then you have saved yourself going for 2 if you get the ball back and score another TD (or you can go for 2 for the win). OK that's a pretty fair reward, but what of the risk?

If you miss, then you need to have 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives. With only 6 minutes and 1 timeout, the odds of getting this done are very slim. I propose that the risk of failure therefore exceeds the reward of success, based on the slim chance of recovering from the failure. If you disagree, what's your basis? An attractive likelihood of 2 more scores? Methinks not. Read on.

OTOH-- If you kick the PAT, you need another TD, plus a deuce. Is it more likely to get that than to get 2 more possessions? I think-guess-wager that historical odds will say that getting 6+2 is considerably more likely than getting 2 stops (or onside kick recoveries) and 2 scoring drives, with 6 rapidly vanishing minutes and 1 timeout remainig. Of course if you miss the 2nd one, you're screwed anyway.
But the key concept here is still the logical "probability" of success.

The only way to say that going for 2 is "logical" is to believe that you have just as good a chance of getting the ball back twice and scoring twice than you do of getting a 6+2, with 6 minutes and 1 TO.

This analysis doesn't rely on speculation or guarantees, or "momentum", it relies on raw mathematical probabilities. That, my stubborn friends, is as close to a purely logical and mathematical analysis as you can get, at least it's as close as I can get. You may disagree, of course, but your disagreement will not be based on logical, mathematical probabilities.

As for Verneil's rule that you go for 2 when down by 9, that makes sense if you have more than 6 minutes or more than 1 time-out remaining.

To believe that the reward of going for 2 exceeds the risk in the given situation, you must believe the proposition that it is probably easier to score twice in a short time, than it is to get a 6+2 in the same short time. I do not think the historical odds will support that proposition.


That's it for me. I admit that trying to talk sense into your head is vain and useless. You may have the last word, albeit the wrong one.

It's been more fun that you think. Boomer Sooner. :)

[jkjsooner]

What I am saying is that you play to keep the game one possession. Why? Because that is the single most influential factor on how the rest of the game will play out. You have so many more factors in your favor when down by one possession than when down by two.

And you have so many more factors in your favor when down by 7 than down by 8. No matter how you state it, your argument relies on an assumption that the conversion fails after TD#1 but with no such assumption on the outcome of the conversion after TD#2.



If you claim that you're going to have more time on the clock if you go for two earlier...isn't that just crystal ball logic?

No it isn't. If you know you need two scores than you adjust your gameplan to attempt to score faster.

Is it possible that you have more time after after missing the conversion after TD#2? Yes, it is possible. Is it probable? No.

Is it possible to score faster running a base offense than a two minute offense? Yes, it is. Is it probable that you will score faster that way? No, it is not.

[rekamrettuB]

Again, give me a rationale why this is true. Just because it's something that gets repeated over and over doesn't mean it is the right choice.

90% of the people who repeat this couldn't pass an elementary probability test. They simply repeat it because it sound right even though any mathematical analysis would show you that it isn't true.

I don't know Gruden's educational background. I know he's a great coach but that has a lot more to do with finding and developing talent and executing a gameplan than it has to do with knowing the probabilities of success (meaning ultimately winning the game) when going for two after TD#1 or TD#2.

Either way, the point was made that no NFL coach would make the same choice as Stoops. We know of two games in the last few weeks where they did just that. We also know that the most used conversion chart (developed by someone who became a very successful NFL coach) shows to go for two when down by 9 late in the game.

If someone said "no NFL coach" then that's speaking in absolutes and that should "never" be done. And I"m not a "repeater". I have several witnesses that I said "kick the XP" even before OU scored that TD. The question was raised at the watch party when OU was getting close. I have never recalled a similar situation but it made sense to me regardless of the outcome of either 2 point conversion. Players emotions, both sides, knowing they are down 2 scores compared to 1 would be a huge factor.

If you kick the XP, kick it deep and make a stop, there's a **** ton more pressure on that defense now to make a stop. It's not like they would stop and say "oh, well they have to make the 2 pointer anyway so we can play it safe and just let them score". They would be ****ting egg rolls that they are about to lose this lead.

Ultimately, and I hope this is my last post on this topic, I don't think the reward of being down 7 with 6 left was greater than the risk of being down 9. That's what it boils down to in my simple mind.

I was hoping to not revisit this today but then last night had to happen. :)

[TopDawg]

Now I'm wondering if you guys are just messing with us. Using average conversion rates, here it is:

40% chance you get the ball down by 7 points
60% chance you get the ball down by 9 points

You're making an argument as if it is 0% we're down by 7 and 100% we're down by 9. You fail this probability test.

Although it seems like you are intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying, I'm going to assume that you really aren't understanding my argument, so here it is again...hopefully a little more clearly stated.

I'm saying you are 99% sure of being in a one-possession game if you attempt the extra point kick. You are 40% sure (I guess) of being in a one-possession game if you attempt the two-point conversion.

And...

If you are down by one possession (after kicking the extra point) you are more likely to get the ball back with a chance to tie or win the game than you are if you are down by two possessions (after missing on the two-point conversion).

So...

You go for one the first time and keep it a one-possession game.

I know you're already beginning to type your response "HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO FAIL THE FIRST TIME!?!?! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!" You don't know. And you don't know it's going to succeed. And since it's more likely to fail than succeed (as one of your teammates has pointed out) you go ahead and kick the extra point so that the game stays a one-possession game because there are so many more factors in your favor when it's a one-possession game than when it's a two-possession game. And THAT is what you want. You want to give your team the best chance to win (or tie, in this case). And since probabilities of success on the 2-point conversion don't change if you do it earlier or later, you go with the call that gives you the best chance on the other plays that are going to take place during the remaining 6 minutes.

[jkjsooner]

You have meticulously avoided addressing the simplest issue, which is that, IF you miss, you have less likelihood of scoring twice than you do of getting the 6+2 in one possession. You just pretend that the question is not important.

I have not avoided this. All the things I've said about your lack of logic is based on this question you keep asking.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. This question assumes a failure on a conversion after TD#1 but makes no assumption about the failure after TD#2.

Of course you haven't stated this directly. Whether you can comprehend it or not, the mere fact that your asking this question implies this assumption.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

So..

Some of you say he should have waited on the 2pt try

and some of you say he did the right thing

and some say it really didn't matter either way..

got it

[jkjsooner]

I'm saying you are 99% sure of being in a one-possession game if you attempt the extra point kick. You are 40% sure (I guess) of being in a one-possession game if you attempt the two-point conversion.


So what? You have to play out all of the probabilities. Let's assume 100% success on PAT's for simplicity.

Probability of success:

2+TD+1 = 40% * TD% * 100% = 40% * TD%
1+TD+2 = 100% *TD% * 40% = 40% * TD%

It doesn't really matter what the probability of a one possession game is after the first TD/conversion. It really matters what the total probability of a one possession game is. In that case these are the same.

As others have stated, thinking it is a one possession game for a longer period of time does not ultimately make it a one possession game.

[SoonerAtKU]

The bottom line is that Stoops put his players in a position to completely change the face of the game TWICE, and they couldn't get it done. I didn't like the taste in my mouth after the punt, but other than that, I have ZERO problem with making a tough call to try to win the game and change momentum.

If either of those plays bounce the other way, Bob's a hero even if they end up losing. People complaining is just hindsight and sour grapes.

[Sooners78]

Dawg,

The reason people are assuming no/little time left on the clock is that that's the point of a game-ending drive. If OU is down 8, they're going to try to score with time expiring to avoid giving a fired-up home team the chance to win it with a big return or a trick play (remember that they weren't scared to run a few of those, and we know all too well how those have worked out for us on the road in recent years).

Personally, I agree with Bob and I said it from my couch after the score. You have to go for 2 then, rather than have it all come down to a 2 point play at the end of a game in front of a rabid crowd and a jacked-up defense. If the game was in Norman, I agree with you completely, as the crowd would be in it and Missouri would have been in a bad situation.
Not to mention, that if OU had recovered the onside and scored very quickly, there still could have been upwards of 5 minutes left to play, they might have been able to save a timeout with good play calling, and a field goal would have won the game outright instead of hoping to make a 2 point play in a charged atmosphere to MAYBE send it to overtime on the ROAD?!?!

All of you who are arguing that it would change Missouri's mindset on offense to be within one score may be right, but you're overlooking the mindset of their defense at home, at night, in either a 2 point conversion scenario to either win or go to OT, and then again in OT. That's NOT a situation any coach wants to get into, and Stoops played to get the win. It didn't work out, and that sucks, but if the ball is caught, and the great onside kick was recovered, we're singing a different tune this morning. Maybe it wouldn't have been a win, but in my opinion, it was the right call every time.

This is the reason I'm in the camp that agreed with the call. It's easier to convert when the defense isn't quite as urgent and the fans aren't quite as loud. It's easy to second guess it since it failed, but playing the percentages, I think Bob made the right call.

[cmoneyou]

So your source now is Wade Phillips? Not exactly the best example. John Gruden most definitely disagreed with it. His quote, which is almost identical to all the "go for 2 later" guys, was "you always wait to go for 2 until you absolutely have to".

I'll defer to Gruden over Wade Phillips every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Please show me an example of a coach that has kicked the xp early and waited to go for two. Every claims this is common sense and what every coach would do yet not a single example of this has been shown. I don't doubt it has happened, but no one can show it ever has. And by the way if Gruden is so good at coaching why is he on tv?

[cmoneyou]

Some of you people seem obsessed with communicating the idea that the 2 point conversion is just as likely after the first as it is after the second despite the fact that nobody is arguing against that.

What I am saying is that you play to keep the game one possession. Why? Because that is the single most influential factor on how the rest of the game will play out. You have so many more factors in your favor when down by one possession than when down by two.

And if you miss the 2-point conversion in the "go for it later" scenario...well you're no worse off than you were in the "go for it early" scenario. In both you're going to need an onside kick recovery and score with very little time on the clock.

If you claim that you're going to have more time on the clock if you go for two earlier...isn't that just crystal ball logic?

If you are not arguing that the chances of converting the 2 point changes, then how are you claiming you are any closer to keeping the game to one possession. The only difference is when you find out if the game needs one possession or two.

[cmoneyou]

If someone said "no NFL coach" then that's speaking in absolutes and that should "never" be done. And I"m not a "repeater". I have several witnesses that I said "kick the XP" even before OU scored that TD. The question was raised at the watch party when OU was getting close. I have never recalled a similar situation but it made sense to me regardless of the outcome of either 2 point conversion. Players emotions, both sides, knowing they are down 2 scores compared to 1 would be a huge factor.

If you kick the XP, kick it deep and make a stop, there's a **** ton more pressure on that defense now to make a stop. It's not like they would stop and say "oh, well they have to make the 2 pointer anyway so we can play it safe and just let them score". They would be ****ting egg rolls that they are about to lose this lead.

Ultimately, and I hope this is my last post on this topic, I don't think the reward of being down 7 with 6 left was greater than the risk of being down 9. That's what it boils down to in my simple mind.

I was hoping to not revisit this today but then last night had to happen. :)


You can freely interchange the bolded statement with this one: If you go fro to and get it, kick it deep and make a stop, there's a ton more pressure on that defense now to make a stop. By the way, that pressure bites both ways and it not really a good argument for either side.

[StoopTroup]

The bottom line is that Stoops put his players in a position to completely change the face of the game TWICE, and they couldn't get it done. I didn't like the taste in my mouth after the punt, but other than that, I have ZERO problem with making a tough call to try to win the game and change momentum.

If either of those plays bounce the other way, Bob's a hero even if they end up losing. People complaining is just hindsight and sour grapes.

Yep. I went back and re-watched the game yesterday and as you start to add up all the little mistakes, penalties, missed FG....etc....you can also see how well our Defense also performed and some of the mistakes they made too. We didn't play a flawless game and to many mistakes and turnovers almost always cost you a game. There were some bad calls in the game IMO that also helped make things harder for us in that environment. I sure hope our guys turn that game into a positive. I know lots of folks that call themselves fans won't but that's not near as important as our Team and the Coaching Staff bOUncing back from this loss to make sure we better our winning percentage over last year's 8-5 results. I like our Team and we have some really young guys that will help as we lose some of our Seniors and guys who possibly leave early for the NFL.

[TopDawg]

If you are not arguing that the chances of converting the 2 point changes, then how are you claiming you are any closer to keeping the game to one possession. The only difference is when you find out if the game needs one possession or two.

Fact: An 8-point game is a one-possession game. Just like a 1-point, 2-point, 3-point, etc. game is a one-possession game. It's not called a one-possession game because you are guaranteed that you WILL score to tie or take the lead in one-possession, it is called a one-possession game because of the fact that you CAN.

And that makes a huge difference in how things play out. And it makes a difference in your team's advantage.

Let's recap:

If you fail is it better to fail early or late? I'm inclined to agree that it's better to fail early, but (in the situation we were in) only slightly. With 6 minutes left and only 1 timeout, I think you're going to be left with a dire situation no matter when you fail. Both scenarios are likely to leave you needing an onside kick recovery and score with very little time remaining in the game.

If you succeed is it better to succeed early or late? I'm inclined to believe that it's better to succeed later because it will allow you to carry more momentum into OT, but only slightly better.

But if you don't know if you're going to fail or succeed (which is the case unless you have a crystal ball), I say you go with the option that allows you the best chance to keep the game to a one-possession game because the rest of the game is much more likely to play out more in your favor if it's a one-possession game than if it's a two-possession game.

[TopDawg]

Yep. I went back and re-watched the game yesterday and as you start to add up all the little mistakes, penalties, missed FG....etc....

Or timeouts on first and goal from the one?

That one had me scratching my head, too.

[cmoneyou]

Fact: An 8-point game is a one-possession game. Just like a 1-point, 2-point, 3-point, etc. game is a one-possession game. It's not called a one-possession game because you are guaranteed that you WILL score to tie or take the lead in one-possession, it is called a one-possession game because of the fact that you CAN.

And that makes a huge difference in how things play out. And it makes a difference in your team's advantage.

Let's recap:

If you fail is it better to fail early or late? I'm inclined to agree that it's better to fail early, but (in the situation we were in) only slightly. With 6 minutes left and only 1 timeout, I think you're going to be left with a dire situation no matter when you fail. Both scenarios are likely to leave you needing an onside kick recovery and score with very little time remaining in the game.

If you succeed is it better to succeed early or late? I'm inclined to believe that it's better to succeed later because it will allow you to carry more momentum into OT, but only slightly better.

But if you don't know if you're going to fail or succeed (which is the case unless you have a crystal ball), I say you go with the option that allows you the best chance to keep the game to a one-possession game because the rest of the game is much more likely to play out more in your favor if it's a one-possession game than if it's a two-possession game.


You fail to realize that the thought of a one possession game doesn't come to fruition over half the time. I completely agree you want to do everything you can to keep the game a one possession game, but there is nothing about the timing of the 2 point that keeps it more or less close to one possesion from the 6 minute mark on. You are trying to use terminology that doesn't tell the entire story.

[cmoneyou]

Saying that being down 8 is always a one possssion game is kind of like saying any pass attempt is a touchdown because some passes go for tds.

[TopDawg]

there is nothing about the timing of the 2 point that keeps it more or less close to one possesion from the 6 minute mark on.

:eek:

:confused:

You are either too brilliant or too...otherwise...for me to continue debating this with you so I will humbly bow out.

[cmoneyou]

:eek:

:confused:

You are either too brilliant or too...otherwise...for me to continue debating this with you so I will humbly bow out.

Answer this: Does it make sense to call every pass attempt a td because some of the time they end up being a td?

[StoopTroup]

Or timeouts on first and goal from the one?

That one had me scratching my head, too.


I think I remember that one....what quarter or series was that called?

[cmoneyou]

:eek:

:confused:

You are either too brilliant or too...otherwise...for me to continue debating this with you so I will humbly bow out.

by the way you have to read the entire post to understand, I am sure i could take a sentence out of just any post and make it seem like the post doesn't make sense.

[TopDawg]

I think I remember that one....what quarter or series was that called?

It was in the 4th because we were headed into that endzone. It must've been the possession in question, right?

[cmoneyou]

One more try at getting people to understand how you get no closer to a one possession game in either decision.

If you go for 2 first here is the math:

.4 x .9= 36% chance of a one possession game from the 6 minute point on

If you go for 2 late:

.9 x .4= 36% chance of a one possession game from the 6 minute point on.

[Blue]

What they don't teach you nerds in statistics obviously is momentum and emotion.

The game doesn't happen in a vacuum. The consequence of missing early is a total deflation. No scared players, no scared and quiet fans (are we gonna F this up?), no pressure.

The consequence of kicking the pat? Mizzou is playing extremely cautious and we're more likely to make a stop and get the ball back with a chance to tie. Again putting all pressure on their D to stop us.

[cmoneyou]

What they don't teach you nerds in statistics obviously is momentum and emotion.

The game doesn't happen in a vacuum. The consequence of missing early is a total deflation. No scared players, no scared and quiet fans (are we gonna F this up?), no pressure.

The consequence of kicking the pat? Mizzou is playing extremely cautious and we're more likely to make a stop and get the ball back with a chance to tie. Again putting all pressure on their D to stop us.

When you played any sport tell me exactly how momentum helped you or hurt you when it came to making a play? Those nerd stats are from actual games so those emotions are a part of it. Lets extend your point. What is the consequence of getting the 2 point, What is the consequence of missing the 2 point late? Getting the 2 point isn't much different that getting the xp in your example, but if you miss late you have no time to have a momentum shift. If you want to talk about momentum, you have to realize it swings on a single play.

[Blue]

Nope. I'm done here. Like anybody is going to change their mind.

[cmoneyou]

Nope. I'm done here. Like anybody is going to change their mind.

Lol, just going to give up because you can't defend your argument. Come on what fun would it be if every just went home when they were wrong.

[jkjsooner]

:eek:

:confused:

You are either too brilliant or too...otherwise...for me to continue debating this with you so I will humbly bow out.

I don't think it's about him being brilliant. I think the problem is on the other end.

[cmoneyou]

I don't think it's about him being brilliant. I think the problem is on the other end.

Lol, i would have to agree.

[jkjsooner]

What they don't teach you nerds in statistics obviously is momentum and emotion.

I want to address this. First, Stoops gave the exact same rationale for his decision as we've given. "You have to go for two at some point so you might as well find out if it is successful or not sooner rather than later." All the stats boil down to this simple statement. If we're nerds then so is Stoops.

Second, I'm not saying it's only about statistics. However, Dawg has made statements that defy logic (or at the minimum force you to answer loaded questions) so countering these statements only requires a discussion on logic. Our arguments with Dawg do not tell the whole story but they are sufficient to strike down his failed analysis.

Now, since Dawg simply doesn't get it I'm going to put that aside and break down the pros and cons of going for it first vs last. I'm going to look at a succesful outcome first and then look at an unsuccessful outcome.

Two point try success

Pros of going for it first:

1. You gain even more momentum after the successful try. Now that you are within 7 points, Missouri becomes that much more defensive.
2. You have the option to go for the win after the second TD.

Pros of going for it second:

1. You can carry the momentum over to overtime.

To me these all seem like a wash. I don't think with the momentum that we would have had we would have gone for 2 twice. I'd carry that momentum to overtime (even with our terrible kickers). I think in the success case it really makes no difference.

Two point try failures

Pros of failing first:

1. You now know you are in a two possession game and can gameplan accordingly.

As an example of gameplaning, other than speeding up the offense, I'm under the opinion that if I need an onside kick in one of two kickoffs, do it first. If it fails you can make a stop (hopefully w/o letting the team get into field goal range) and try another onside kick. If you don't know until the end of the game, you have only one chance at an onside kick.

Cons of failing first:

1. You suffer the negative emotional impact of knowing that it is a two possession game earlier and you have to deal with this impact for a longer period of time.

Pros of failing second:

1. The team is under the belief that they are in a one possession game longer. This may lead to a more positive outlook and better performance.

Cons of failing second:

1. You most likely have left yourself less time to get that additional score as you were not gameplanning two possessions.


In the negative case it's a two possession game. I think the most relevant factors are the negative emotional impact of finding out it's a two possession game earlier vs the less time you will have to adjust your gameplan if you find out it's a two possession game later.

I'd rather my players/coaches know it's a two possession game, get them focused on this fact, and go out and try to get two more scores. I would not want to waste a couple of minutes kicking off and holding the opponent if it turns out that I really needed to perform an onside kick. Others may disagree and to them the belief that it is a one possession game is more motivating and outweighs gameplan concerns.

This is my analysis. I'm not saying it's thorough. I welcome responses to anyone as long as they agree that the premise is that you have to treat conversion failures together and conversion successes together so that we can have a balanced discussion instead of being forced to answer loaded questions.

[cmoneyou]

I want to address this. First, Stoops gave the exact same rationale for his decision as we've given. "You have to go for two at some point so you might as well find out if it is successful or not sooner rather than later." All the stats boil down to this simple statement. If we're nerds then so is Stoops.

Second, I'm not saying it's only about statistics. However, Dawg has made statements that defy logic (or at the minimum force you to answer loaded questions) so countering these statements only requires a discussion on logic. Our arguments with Dawg do not tell the whole story but they are sufficient to strike down his failed analysis.

Now, since Dawg simply doesn't get it I'm going to put that aside and break down the pros and cons of going for it first vs last. I'm going to look at a succesful outcome first and then look at an unsuccessful outcome.

Two point try success

Pros of going for it first:

1. You gain even more momentum after the successful try. Now that you are within 7 points, Missouri becomes that much more defensive.
2. You have the option to go for the win after the second TD.

Pros of going for it second:

1. You can carry the momentum over to overtime.

To me these all seem like a wash. I don't think with the momentum that we would have had we would have gone for 2 twice. I'd carry that momentum to overtime (even with our terrible kickers). I think in the success case it really makes no difference.

Two point try failures

Pros of failing first:

1. You now know you are in a two possession game and can gameplan accordingly.

As an example of gameplaning, other than speeding up the offense, I'm under the opinion that if I need an onside kick in one of two kickoffs, do it first. If it fails you can make a stop (hopefully w/o letting the team get into field goal range) and try another onside kick. If you don't know until the end of the game, you have only one chance at an onside kick.

Cons of failing first:

1. You suffer the negative emotional impact of knowing that it is a two possession game earlier and you have to deal with this impact for a longer period of time.

Pros of failing second:

1. The team is under the belief that they are in a one possession game longer. This may lead to a more positive outlook and better performance.

Cons of failing second:

1. You most likely have left yourself less time to get that additional score as you were not gameplanning two possessions.


In the negative case it's a two possession game. I think the most relevant factors are the negative emotional impact of finding out it's a two possession game earlier vs the less time you will have to adjust your gameplan if you find out it's a two possession game later.

I'd rather my players/coaches know it's a two possession game, get them focused on this fact, and go out and try to get two more scores. I would not want to waste a couple of minutes kicking off and holding the opponent if it turns out that I really needed to perform an onside kick. Others may disagree and to them the belief that it is a one possession game is more motivating and outweighs gameplan concerns.

This is my analysis. I'm not saying it's thorough. I welcome responses to anyone as long as they agree that the premise is that you have to treat conversion failures together and conversion successes together so that we can have a balanced discussion instead of being forced to answer loaded questions.

It seems you and I agree that the right decision was made, but i will concede that it comes down to basically a coin flip situation. My main frustration are the people acting like this was a terrible call that goes against "football 101" and "common sense."

[TopDawg]

One more try at getting people to understand how you get no closer to a one possession game in either decision.

I'm going against my better judgment here by responding, but here goes.

You realize that "one-possession game" is not a term that I just now made up, right? It is a widely-used expression in all levels of football that conveys and idea more than a certainty.

Why is it okay to use the term "one-possession game" in a situation where the game might not just be one possession? Because the meaning of the phrase is widely understood by football fans. It means that the game could be tied or the lead could change in one possession.

Why is it okay to use the term "one-possession" when referring to the possible results of a possession but not acceptable to use the term "touchdown pass" on any pass attempt that has a possible result of a touchdown? Since you (apparently honestly) asked that question, I will respond.

The phrase "one-possession" game is useful because it draws a distinction between two types of games. On the one hand you have a game where a team can take the lead or tie the game in one possession. On the other hand you have a game where a team cannot. Teams may do things differently depending on the situation. The same cannot be said about pass attempts. When it comes to pass attempts, on the one hand you have a play where a touchdown is a possible outcome. However, there is no other hand where a touchdown is NOT a possible outcome.

To further clarify things, the term "one-possession game" is not a way of conveying a certainty and I apologize if you understood it to mean that. I was under the impression that I was debating with football fans who were familiar with the common phrases of football and the meanings associated with those phrases. When I used the term "one-possession game" I meant it to indicate a game where the trailing team had a chance to win or tie the game on one possession. I did not mean to communicate that the team would be guaranteed to score on one-possession, just that they had a chance to and that the mere chance of being able to tie the game on one possession (and the resulting benefits of that chance) was reason enough to wait to try to two point conversion. I believe I have outlined that line of thinking in my previous post where I said:


If you fail is it better to fail early or late? I'm inclined to agree that it's better to fail early, but (in the situation we were in) only slightly. With 6 minutes left and only 1 timeout, I think you're going to be left with a dire situation no matter when you fail. Both scenarios are likely to leave you needing an onside kick recovery and score with very little time remaining in the game.

If you succeed is it better to succeed early or late? I'm inclined to believe that it's better to succeed later because it will allow you to carry more momentum into OT, but only slightly better.

But if you don't know if you're going to fail or succeed (which is the case unless you have a crystal ball), I say you go with the option that allows you the best chance to keep the game to a one-possession game because the rest of the game is much more likely to play out more in your favor if it's a one-possession game than if it's a two-possession game.

Some of you have wrapped yourselves up in probabilities. I'm not arguing the probabilities. I grant that they are basically the same no matter when you go for two (although some others may not grant that). However, I claim that the perception of the game (to your players, coaches and fans...and your opponents' players, coaches and fans) is drastically different and that being in a one-possession game is a much better situation to be in. If you kick the extra point the first time, you are ALWAYS in a one-possession game (as long as the other team doesn't score at which point this entire conversation becomes moot). If you miss the 2-point conversion late, you're still in a one-possession game, trailing by only 2. If you miss the 2-point conversion early, you're in a two-possession game and that changes the entire dynamic of the game. It changes it in a way that has some advantages for you (you KNOW that it's a two-possession game) but, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), has more significant disadvantages for you.

[cmoneyou]

I'm going against my better judgment here by responding, but here goes.

You realize that "one-possession game" is not a term that I just now made up, right? It is a widely-used expression in all levels of football that conveys and idea more than a certainty.

Why is it okay to use the term "one-possession game" in a situation where the game might not just be one possession? Because the meaning of the phrase is widely understood by football fans. It means that the game could be tied or the lead could change in one possession.

Why is it okay to use the term "one-possession" when referring to the possible results of a possession but not acceptable to use the term "touchdown pass" on any pass attempt that has a possible result of a touchdown? Since you (apparently honestly) asked that question, I will respond.
The phrase "one-possession" game is useful because it draws a distinction between two types of games.[/B][/B] On the one hand you have a game where a team can take the lead or tie the game in one possession. On the other hand you have a game where a team cannot. Teams may do things differently depending on the situation. The same cannot be said about pass attempts. When it comes to pass attempts, on the one hand you have a play where a touchdown is a possible outcome. However, there is no other hand where a touchdown is NOT a possible outcome.

To further clarify things, the term "one-possession game" is not a way of conveying a certainty and I apologize if you understood it to mean that. I was under the impression that I was debating with football fans who were familiar with the common phrases of football and the meanings associated with those phrases. When I used the term "one-possession game" I meant it to indicate a game where the trailing team had a chance to win or tie the game on one possession. I did not mean to communicate that the team would be guaranteed to score on one-possession, just that they had a chance to and that the mere chance of being able to tie the game on one possession (and the resulting benefits of that chance) was reason enough to wait to try to two point conversion. I believe I have outlined that line of thinking in my previous post where I said:



Some of you have wrapped yourselves up in probabilities. I'm not arguing the probabilities. I grant that they are basically the same no matter when you go for two (although some others may not grant that). However, I claim that the perception of the game (to your players, coaches and fans...and your opponents' players, coaches and fans) is drastically different and that being in a one-possession game is a much better situation to be in. If you kick the extra point the first time, you are ALWAYS in a one-possession game (as long as the other team doesn't score at which point this entire conversation becomes moot). If you miss the 2-point conversion late, you're still in a one-possession game, trailing by only 2. If you miss the 2-point conversion early, you're in a two-possession game and that changes the entire dynamic of the game. It changes it in a way that has some advantages for you (you KNOW that it's a two-possession game) but, in my opinion (and the opinion of many others), has more significant disadvantages for you.

You keep talking about the one possession game, and I agree that the term means what it means, but I am showing you that the term is not accurate. Your keep making the argument that you want to keep it a one possession game as long as possible yet you concede in your post that you understand the game is not any more likely to be just a one possession game. Your entire argument seems to be based on not understanding how many possession will actually be needed.

The bolded statement shows a flaw in your argument. We are discussing a call made with 6 minutes to go in the game. If the bolded statement happens, the game is a 2 possession game with 6 minutes to go.

[TopDawg]

Second, I'm not saying it's only about statistics. However, Dawg has made statements that defy logic (or at the minimum force you to answer loaded questions) so countering these statements only requires a discussion on logic. Our arguments with Dawg do not tell the whole story but they are sufficient to strike down his failed analysis.

You've got me confused with someone else. What statements did I post that defy logic?


Now, since Dawg simply doesn't get it I'm going to put that aside and break down the pros and cons of going for it first vs last. I'm going to look at a succesful outcome first and then look at an unsuccessful outcome.

Uhm, didn't I just do that a few posts ago? That's the post that cmoneyou replied to when he fried my brain with his "one-possession game" denial.

[Sooner_Tuf]

What it really boils down to is exactly what Coach Stoops said. You have to go for two sooner or later. Well since we are not the Oklahoma Laters we went for it Sooner. :D

[TopDawg]

Your keep making the argument that you want to keep it a one possession game as long as possible yet you concede in your post that you understand the game is not any more likely to be just a one possession game.

My apologies, cmoneyou, for continuing to use that bugaboo phrase. If you'll go back to my original post, the phrase I used was "getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game." Eventually I started substituting that for one-possession game because I figured most people understood how I was using that phrase.

So let me go back to "getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game (or take the lead)." Substitute that phrase where appropriate. Does it change things for you?

[jkjsooner]

Dawg, there is really nothing in your last post to disagree with. You have backed off from your loaded question which was:

Wouldn't you rather be in a one possession game than a two possession game at six minutes?

That was a terribly loaded question. It assumes a failure on the conversion in one choice but an indeterminant result on the conversion in the other. the fact that did not see that you were stacking the deck against us is why I say you're using failed logic. If you knew you were asking a loaded question then my apologies.

A fair question would ask for a choice between the following:

1. Would you rather be in a situation that remains a one possession game and ultimately having a 40% probability of ending up a one possession game.
2. Would you rather take the 40% chance right now of having a guaranteed one possesion game and a 60% chance of a guaranteed two possession game.

When people say it's a "one possession game" when down by 8, it means there's still a chance that the game can be tied in one possession. In terms of momentum this distinction between a guaranteed one possession game and a possible one possesion game makes little difference. But in terms of probability analysis the distinction is important.

Note: When I say guaranteed one possesion game, I mean a guarantee if you score a TD. Obviously that is not guaranteed but in every scenario we must assume this otherwise the whole argument become moot.


Note2: NFL teams nowadays are very sophisticated. Many of the successful teams have very sophisticated tools that do data and probability analysis when developing gameplans. I believe the Patriots lead the charge in this respect. Call them geeks all you want but it is part of the game.

[cmoneyou]

My apologies, cmoneyou, for continuing to use that bugaboo phrase. If you'll go back to my original post, the phrase I used was "getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game." Eventually I started substituting that for one-possession game because I figured most people understood how I was using that phrase.

So let me go back to "getting the ball back with a chance to tie the game (or take the lead)." Substitute that phrase where appropriate. Does it change things for you?

Ok let me help you out here. If the success of xp = 100% and the 2 point 40%:

Go for 2 first: .4 x 1= 40% chance at getting the ball back and getting a chance to tie

Go for 1 first: 1 x .4= 40% chance at getting the ball back with a chance to tie

You can try to act like the definition of one possession makes the argument valid but it doesn't. You do not have any better chance of being able to tie in once possession either way.

[jkjsooner]

I'm going to throw a bone to the conversion last crowd. I've used the argument that it's better to know early that the game will ultimately end up a two possession game so that you can gameplan.

Now, that being said, there is another team to consider. By OU knowing early Missouri also knows early. So while OU can take steps the lengthen the game (increase the number of plays) Missouri can take steps to shorten the game.

I would assume that Missouri's main focus is running the clock whether they lead by 9 or 7 so there is limited adjustments to their gameplan. They could possibly feel in one scenario that they need to open up and attempt to get one first down whereas in the other they only need to protect the ball and use the clock.

The trailing team has more options to take drastic steps. They can play faster on offense. They can push the ball upfield more. They can try onside kicks.

I think knowing what you need early is more advantageous to the trailing team than to the team with a lead but I'll admit that any analysis should consider that the leading team can also use the early knowledge to their advantage as well.

[TUSooner]

I'm going to throw a bone to the conversion last crowd. I've used the argument that it's better to know early that the game will ultimately end up a two possession game so that you can gameplan.

Now, that being said, there is another team to consider. By OU knowing early Missouri also knows early. So while OU can take steps the lengthen the game (increase the number of plays) Missouri can take steps to shorten the game.

I would assume that Missouri's main focus is running the clock whether they lead by 9 or 7 so there is limited adjustments to their gameplan. They could possibly feel in one scenario that they need to open up and attempt to get one first down whereas in the other they only need to protect the ball and use the clock.

The trailing team has more options to take drastic steps. They can play faster on offense. They can push the ball upfield more. They can try onside kicks.

I think knowing what you need early is more advantageous to the trailing team than to the team with a lead but I'll admit that any analysis should consider that the leading team can also use the early knowledge to their advantage as well.

Well, sh*t. I was going to reluctantly concede that with 6 minutes to go, it might maybe perhaps possibly be potentially conceivable that the trailing team, having failed on the (ill-advised) 2-pointer, might actualy have some choices to make that would increase their odds of getting the 2 scores necessary to win (and not just tie) the game. To wit:

play faster on offense...push the ball upfield more...try onside kicks. :O

I'll also concede that there may be some unusual extraneous factor that makes a coach more confident than usual of making the 2-pointer, in which case, the coach alone has the prerogative to gamble and should not be harshly second-guessed. :O

BUT... I'm still going to insist that the cold impersonal percentages give you a distinctly higher probabillity of ultimate success if you take the single and keep the situation so that you have the opportunity to avoid defeat with one possession rather than 2. (And that's not even considering the emotional pressure you keep on the defense by taking the point and keeping them within one mistake of seeing their lead on the line once again. Mizzou breathed a huge sigh of relief when we missed that deuce.) :P

Now I really have to stop. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[soonerbub]

I'm going to throw a bone to the conversion last crowd. I've used the argument that it's better to know early that the game will ultimately end up a two possession game so that you can gameplan.


It was guaranteed to be a 1 score game if we make the kick--no gameplan necessary

[cmoneyou]

I'm going to throw a bone to the conversion last crowd. I've used the argument that it's better to know early that the game will ultimately end up a two possession game so that you can gameplan.


It was guaranteed to be a 1 score game if we make the kick--no gameplan necessary

LOL did you even read the thread? It is only guaranteed to seem like a one possession game.

[cmoneyou]

Well, sh*t. I was going to reluctantly concede that with 6 minutes to go, it might maybe perhaps possibly be potentially conceivable that the trailing team, having failed on the (ill-advised) 2-pointer, might actualy have some choices to make that would increase their odds of getting the 2 scores necessary to win (and not just tie) the game. To wit:
:O

I'll also concede that there may be some unusual extraneous factor that makes a coach more confident than usual of making the 2-pointer, in which case, the coach alone has the prerogative to gamble and should not be harshly second-guessed. :O

BUT... I'm still going to insist that the cold impersonal percentages give you a distinctly higher probabillity of ultimate success if you take the single and keep the situation so that you have the opportunity to avoid defeat with one possession rather than 2. (And that's not even considering the emotional pressure you keep on the defense by taking the point and keeping them within one mistake of seeing their lead on the line once again. Mizzou breathed a huge sigh of relief when we missed that deuce.) :P

Now I really have to stop. :eek: :eek: :eek:

If that is the case, please show the math. We showed ours.

[soonerbub]

Ok bottom line for me is I'd rather be down 2 goin for the tie w :02 left than down 9 their ball on my end w 6:00 left