Football decision: you're down by 14

believed in going for two in this situation.

and completely agree with going for 2.

while no punting probably doesn't work in the NFL, every professional team should have a running back that can get at least 3 ypc. now add in the play action or any form of passing play that the defense isn't expecting, the odds should be greater than 50%. run the play action the first time, then you set up your run or other plays.

wikipedia has a Mathematical analysis of the two-point conversion that says otherwise, but in theory it should work. (also a 14 point strategy that you led with).
wiki - ( New Window )

Assumptions per this hypothetical
- The team down 14 will score two touchdowns, otherwise the coach's decision is irrelevant.
- Any score by the other team after the first score ends the game, otherwise the coach's decision is irrelevant.
- Overtime is a 50-50 proposition.

The key thing to remember is that kicking two extra points to tie up the game does nothing more than extend the game but it still only gives the team that caught up a 50% chance of winning.

2-pt conversion rates have been cited as being anywhere from 40%-55% successful. Let's use 40% to be conservative. With that number, your chance of failing both conversion attempts is 36%.

If you get the conversion on the first try, you win the game on your next TD (since you are guaranteed to make the XP). Thus, going for two on the first try means that 40% of the time, you have a 100% chance of winning.

The other 60% of the time, you have to hope to get the second conversion attempt. This too is 40%, but getting it only sends it to overtime, which is a 50% chance of winning.

So really, the equation is
(40% x 100%W) + 60% x (40% x 50%W)
=
.4W + .12W = .52W.

Thus, using the conservative estimate of a 40% 2-point conversion success rate and a 50% chance of winning in OT, going for two when down 8 gives you a 52% chance of winning.

If you use the higher estimate of 55%, then it goes to

(55% x 100%W) + 45% x (55% x 50%W)
=
.55W + .12375W = .67375W

Thus, a 55% success rate on two point conversions means that going for two when down by 8 gives the team a 67.375% chance of winning.

Coaches, however, will typically choose the XP route because that is standard operating procedure and coaches don't get fired/blamed for making the conventional decision.

is that a team that gets two late touchdowns in likely to win in OT (momentum, defensive fatigue).

Is a no-brainer, and easily explained and supported. The problem is that it opens the coach up to a level of scrutiny because it is so unconventional...

in favor of PBTSU

The probability of success for converting both two point conversion, when each event has a 40% chance of success, is 16%. If the two point conversion success rate is 50% then the joint probability goes up to 25%. So, you have a 16% - 25% success rate of winning the game if you go for the two point conversions, but the success rate goes up to 50% when the extra point is kicked. Easy decision. Kick for the extra point.

In comment 11937927 compton said:

Quote:

The probability of success for converting both two point conversion, when each event has a 40% chance of success, is 16%. If the two point conversion success rate is 50% then the joint probability goes up to 25%. So, you have a 16% - 25% success rate of winning the game if you go for the two point conversions, but the success rate goes up to 50% when the extra point is kicked. Easy decision. Kick for the extra point.

There is no requirement to convert both two point conversions. You only need one.

if you get the first one, you don't even need to try the second.

I concur with the weighted probability analysis by PBTSU.

that you only need to convert one. In that case, Paul Blake is correct and the odds goes up to about 66% chance of winning.

So the odds of winning either way is about even.

In comment 11937757 Rocky369 said:

Quote:

while no punting probably doesn't work in the NFL, every professional team should have a running back that can get at least 3 ypc. now add in the play action or any form of passing play that the defense isn't expecting, the odds should be greater than 50%. run the play action the first time, then you set up your run or other plays. wikipedia has a Mathematical analysis of the two-point conversion that says otherwise, but in theory it should work. (also a 14 point strategy that you led with). wiki - ( New Window )

The "we go for it on 4th down, every time no matter what", and the "we onsides kick every kickoff no matter what" philosophy?

I just wonder how that would actually work in the NFL

if you are down by 14 and score a td, you are down by 7....

you decide go for 1 or go for 2. At that point you are down by 8.

on the surface at least, I don't know if there are figures that say otherwise, is that you only have a 50-50 chance in OT under these circumstances.

My gut says the team coming back from 14 down would have momentum (and possibly defensive fatigue) on their side, thus upping their odds of winning in OT. But I don't know if this matches the actual numbers.

In comment 11937757 Rocky369 said:

Quote:

while no punting probably doesn't work in the NFL, every professional team should have a running back that can get at least 3 ypc. now add in the play action or any form of passing play that the defense isn't expecting, the odds should be greater than 50%. run the play action the first time, then you set up your run or other plays. wikipedia has a Mathematical analysis of the two-point conversion that says otherwise, but in theory it should work. (also a 14 point strategy that you led with). wiki - ( New Window )

NYTimes had an article on this today stating that Rex should utilize the no punt strategy from here on out. They have a strong running game (6th best per rush avg I think) and he has nothing to lose. Basically claim it'll pad his resume as a coach willing to go against the norm.

Stubborn coach runs away possessions when it clearly hasn't worked that game up until the point.

I would however press the issue and go for 2 - however, the rest of the NFL is on to our shotgun draw for 2 points at the goal line. the spread 4 wide draw has worked though - but we typically do the shotgun draw or fade

Never thought about it but Ray and PaulBlake have laid out why this is such a great idea since the object is to win the game.

If we're going to assume converting the extra point(s) is a given, no matter how small/big the possibility of missing both 2-point conversions, its still an additional risk... an unnecessary gamble IMO, and I wouldnt be happy if the HC made that decision unless there are other pertinent factors like he thinks his team is gassed, the defense wont hold up, the PK is shakey...etc.

If my team puts together 2 late TD drives (& a defensive stop or a successful on-side kick recovery sandwiched in between), they've earned every opportunity to try to win in OT. I would never risk taking away that opportunity from them because of missed 2 point conversions, when they werent absolutely necessary.

Thats the reason coaches never go for 2 point conversions early in the game... you take the points (extra kick), and only take the risk of a 2 point conversion when its necessary, otherwise, its by definition, an "unnecessary risk".

Same logic... when a team is down 15 points, and they score a TD, they kick an extra point after, and push back the 2 point conversion to the 2nd TD required to tie the game. You always push back taking risks until you have to.

A missed 2 point conversion (after the 1st TD scored) is probably a psychological boost to the defense, and deflates the offense... momentum swing shifts.