I think it's all about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost of eschewing the 2 for the 1 is much larger than 2-1=1. Those opportunities are rare with a relative fixed number of possessions in a game. Take advantage.

There are two reasons it's bad to go for 2 early in a game:

1. You're sacrificing point ev. This matters more early in the game when it's harder to predict the exact scoring pattern, like being able to tie the game with 2 field goals after a missed 2pt.

2. If the scoring is mostly/entirely touchdowns, you give the other coach a chance to make an easy decision. If you convert your 2pt early in the game, when the other team scores later, they're going to go for 2. But if you miss your 2pt, the other team will kick the XP to go up.

Not if you're Oregon

disagree on both points

1) early in the game, the scoring pattern doesn't matter as much. you want to maximize your total score, not try to match yourself up to tie/take the lead with a certain type of score. if you think you can make 2 point conversions at a better rate than you opponent can, it makes sense to go for it every time in the first 3 quarters from an EV standpoint.

2) if you kick the extra point, the opposing coach has an easy decision - he is kicking the extra point. its the same exact thing. the decision is easy, but what matters is the execution. if you can execute better, you should go for 2 because the opposing team will be forced to match you in a 2 point attempt and they wont be able to.

wat

People seem to be ignoring all the times you miss the conversion and give your opponent a free one point lead. You can't look at a football game as just maximizing total points due to the specific increments in which points are scored and the fact that the only thing that matters is the percent of time you have more at the end (which is not the same as highest expected differential.)

I don't think it's a given that going for two is sacrificing point EV. In fact teams with good offenses probably sacrifice point EV by not going for two.

even so, the next time you score a TD you can go for 2 again and go back up by 7.

it will be less often that youll be giving a team a free one point lead than when you go up 8-0 or 8-7 and take a 1 point lead or have a chance to take a 2 point lead - then later have a chance to take a 2 possession lead despite scoring 2 TD compared to your opponent's 1 TD.

i have a hard time believing a team like the panthers, the jets, 49ers, or redskins cant convert 60%+ of their 2 point tries. just run a triple option with a passing threat to your big TE, its impossible to stop consistently from 2 yards out

i think QB runs in 2 point situations are like 70%+ since 2000

and goal to go from the 2 has a very high success rate as well. really, how hard can it be? its 2 yards

He misspoke slightly. It's actually whether the probability of you making the 2pc is greater than the opponent's probability of MISSING the 2pc. So if the other team is 0% to miss the 2pc then you obv go for 2 to get up by 9.

Math: let's say your probability of making the 2pc is x, and the opponent's is y. To simplify, consider only the cases where the other team will score 1 more TD in the game (if this doesn't happen then we win in either scenario), and if they tie it up then we are 50/50 in overtime

Option 1: you go for 2. Now you win with probability x+.5(1-x) = .5 + .5x (you win automatically if you make the 2pc, and then you are .5 to win it when you miss the 2pc)

Option 2: you go for 1. The other team will then go for 2, so you will win with probability (1-y) + .5y = 1 - .5y (you win automatically if they miss the 2pc, and if they make it you are .5 to win in overtime)

So we take Option 1 if 1-.5y < .5 + .5x
ie .5 -.5y < .5x
ie 1-y < x

So we compare our probability of making it to the opponent's probability of missing it


The above assumes that the other coach will always play for overtime when down 7 by kicking the PAT. If in that spot the other coach goes for 2 and the win (which he should do if his chance of getting the 2pc is > the chance of winning in overtime i.e. y > .5) then you should go for 2 if your conversion chance is > the chance of winning in overtime (x > .5). You can do similar math to show this one, or you can just think of it as a decision between overtime and a 2pc. No matter what you win if they miss their 2 - but in the cases where they make their 2 then Option 1 (going for 2 yourself) wins with probability x, whereas Option 2 (kicking the PAT) wins with probability .5 since you go to overtime.

no. your opponent's 2-pt conversion rate isn't nearly as important as your own 2-pt conversion rate. early in the game you go for it if you're >~50% to make it. and the third quarter isn't "early in the game". the score matters a LOT especially toward the end of the third quarter.

QB runs in 2 point situations and on x and goal from the 2 are high percentage plays because a good chunk of them are passing plays where the QB saw a hole and decided to run. it's an irrelevant statistic without context. running back runs, i believe, are somewhere in the 55% conversion range; this is the statistic that should have coaches at least experimenting with going for 2 more often, especially when they have a good short yardage back.

The and go from the 2 or just pretty much any 4th and 2 is relevant

Most 3rd and 2s relevant as well

All two point conversions obv

There is plenty of data

nobody's saying there isn't

A short yardage back to me is a running back who sucks. I hate when they bring in the short yardage back because they are attempting to gain short yardage. Rather have the real back in there. I would never have a short yardage back for a multitude of reasons.

good short yardage back = running back who converts short yardage plays with high probability. this may be the primary running back or another running back.

this is almost as bad as not employing a PAT kicker.

If anything, they're saying there aren't.

only the ******ed nits

Are you mad, bro?

i are mad, bro

there's a subtle difference between a two point conversion, and 3rd and 2 from midfield, in the latter case you can actually use 12+ yard routes and if you have a competent coach try again if incomplete. minor nittery, but still

there's also the not subtle at all difference that teams will occasionally (but frequently enough that it matters) correctly go for the surprise long bomb on 3rd and 2. there's also significant benefit to passing and gaining 10-20 yards over running and gaining 2-3, but they're equivalent from the 2 yard line.

3rd and 2 is very different and you really can't use that data blindly unless you're going for a very rough ballpark estimate. of course if you're converting between 3rd and 2 and 3rd and 4 over 70% of the time that's a pretty useful statistic.

Your stats are not the complete picture here. QB runs are successful 70% of the time because if the QB is tackled behind the line of scrimmage it is counted as a sack not a run. Also if a QB drops back to pass and sees a running lane that is a clear score he will take it. Designed QB runs are just about 50/50.

-2 point conversions are good ~47-48% of the time. This does not include situations like bad snaps on 1 point attempts that get lumped into 2 point attempts.
-1 point kicks are good ~98-99% of the time.

They have about the same equity. The decision comes down to the situation in the game.

none of this accounts for how good your offense/how bad the defense is though. there obv isn't a large historical sample to look at, but i'm pretty confident the actual conversion percentage is closer to 60% with the right matchups. 1pt kicks are gonna be ~99% regardless.