Down 14 And Going for 2

Oh and I hope I didn't make any stupid math errors for once :)

I am sure about the result however.

... if things are statistically independent. That means that if you miss the first 2-pointer, the odds don't change (i.e., they don't get worse, due to a more desperate situation) for the second one.

The prior statistical outcomes are outweighed by the significance of the game's actual situational factors.

It isn't done more because the odds are against you when you are attempting it. To keep the team as motivated as possible, one doesn't push the odds until one has to. There is also momentum to consider, and when Michigan made up the 14 points deficit, all the momentum was on their side. Maybe you go for two after the second touchdown in regulation, and play the odds. But, again, with momentum on your side maybe you take it to overtime with the belief that your offense is going to score a touchdown.

This is really interesting, and what I think would probably be how Tony LaRussa would coach football.

What would be most interesting about this is the fact that the 2 pt percentage would likely change in some statistically significant way if coaches employed this philosophy. Seems to me that more 2 pt conversions would be attempted, because teams trying to come back score that first touchdown, only to fall short on the second one fairly often. Wonder what that would do to the percentages and how it would change the way people coach.

My guess is most coaches will still go for overtime, though.

I think that's a more common mistake. We think in terms of the simple scenario, and don't give enough weight to the multiple-step possibilities.

In regards to the conversion likelihood, I heard many years ago in the upper 30s and a few years ago about 40% for CFB.

I think the 44% chance of conversion is contingent on having a threatening run game

Not that you were specifically applying this diary to the most recent game of ours, but the similarities are striking, and I'm just sayin' for sayin's sake

Road or home game? Who has the momentum? Did any key players get hurt and will not be around for OT? Are you a passing or running team and what is the weather? Do you feel lucky ... punk?

It depends on the specific circumstances.

Hopefully not too tangential from this discussion, but why don't we have Denard holding kicks instead of Zoltan? Maybe it's in the works and he's just not reliable enough to use in games, but Denard's the perfect guy to have there if you ever want to run a trick play off a FG/PAT attempt. Only bringing this up here because the idea came to mind at the end of regulation, when I thought we might go for 2 instead of taking our chances in overtime.

Statistics aside...in hindsight...it would have been fun to see them go for 2 after the last TD. MSU's defense was tired and reeling (as evident by their blown coverages....then last TO and subsequent blown coverage)

Tate was hot and playing out of control crazy good...Big Mo was on the Wolverines side... Sparty moved the ball vs. Michigan's D all game and they have a very good kicker....

Normally RR is a very aggressive coach...I wouldnt have faulted him for going for the win right there....

but he didnt, and Michigan lost....

and hindsight is still 20-20, last time I checked anyway.

The flaw within the generic math beyond what is noted previously would seem to be that it really should use specific numbers for the specific teams i.e. to get closer to the true "odds", Michigan's % of conversion against similar defensive teams, and the specific defensive teams % against similar offensive teams would be used.

It is a specific scenario after all: e.g. Delaware State does not have a 44% chance of converting 2 against Alabama.

In a purely mathematical world, this would work perfectly. Take the highest probable conclusion, and you're guaranteed over an infinite time period that you will always come out ahead.

However, in the human and risk averse atmosphere, this won't happen. The easiest example would be with money. If I asked for $100,000, and told you there was a 57% chance that I'd give you $200,000 tomorrow, Math says you should always do it. After all, $100,000*.43+ $200,000*.57 - $100,000 = +$14,000. You'd come out $14,000 in the long term if you took every such investment. However, you're constrained by your resources. You don't have many $100,000 bundles lying around to risk. If you don't come out ahead in the short term, you may not have another $100,000 to risk. In the long run (>30 tries) it will even out, but only if the variables remain unchanged and the percentage was valid to begin with. That is, if this is available every single day at the exact same rate, and assuming I'm notsetting up a Ponzi Scheme.

You can apply this to coaching as well. Sure, in the long run doing this will cause you to come out ahead, but how many times is this applicable? 2, maybe 3 games at most in a season? If you're a coach with 3 such opportunities, and you fail 3 times, chances are that you aren't around long enough for the law of averages to come into play. You also need to find the true percentage of 2 point conversions, of a prepared O vs. a prepared D, how many aren't in garbage time, how many aren't against overmatched opponents, and so on.

After you do all of this, 99% of coaches will disregard this information and go with the chart. Why? Because there will be less fallout if they go into OT and lose (they came back from 14 down remember?). If they go for the win and lose, they'll be second guessed by everybody.

/math

The vast majority of the attempts are going to be straight FGs and XPs, and if Robinson mishandles the snap even a few times over the course of a season, it completely eradicates the benefit of having him there. If (as I suspect) he has never done this in his football life in games that mattered, it's not the sort of thing one just picks up casually.

Let's let Denard try to master one position before giving him another.

2 teams 2 possible outcomes = 50/50 chance to win.

/sarcasm

I favor going FTW after 2nd TD. If at home, kick the PAT and go to overtime.

First, I have always had a problem with those who argue for going for two and/or going for it on fourth down for HS and/or college teams based on NFL statistics. "Let's start off with a few assumptions. According to this rivals article, the average 2pt conversion rate in the NFL is 44%." Followed later by: "44% of the time we make the first 2pt conversion and go on to win the game." Um, no. 44% of the time an *NFL team* makes it and goes on to with the game. You're dealing with different field dimensions (and by that I mean hash marks and goal-post width), different rules, and different maturity levels of players, both physically and mentally.

Second, what the math fails to take into account is the psychological impact of making/not making it. If you go for a 4th and 1 from your own 25 and don't make it in the NFL, professional football players are much more likely to block the missed attempt out of their minds and play ball. In high school, you do that and you are much more likely fucked. On the other hand, a QB sneak on 4th and inches is way more likely to be successful on the HS level than the NFL level, mostly b/c the DL guys aren't as quick off the ball and also b/c the QBs are more like regular ball players compared to the rest of the guys on the field.

I think what a successful coach does is to learn the mathematical probabilities using statistics gathered at the appropriate level of football (NFL stats for NFL coaches, college stats for college coaches, etc.), but also then assesses the psychological state of his team at the time and their likely psychological reaction to potential outcomes, and finally his instinct.

I, for one, would have kicked the first PAT and then gone for two at the end IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. We had them reeling, totally on their heels, and I believe you take advantage of momentum as soon as possible. I think momentum goes out the door b/w the end of regulation and OT b/c of the time players and coaches have to regroup (officials regrouping, time b/w periods, coin flip, etc.). I don't think players are going, "We've got them reeling." I think they're going, "Okay, now we've got overtime." It's almost a true "reset" situation.

You can't compare this scenario with what happens in the NFL because it is not an apples to apples comparison. The NFL is sudden death, so going for 2 might make more sense because you control your own destiny (at 44% if the number cited above is right - I thought it was higher) vs. leaving it up to a 50/50 flip of the coin (since the majority of NFL OT games are won by the team that wins the toss).

It's a different equation altogether when each team gets the ball, and it weighs more heavily in favor of taking the tie since you will have an equal opportunity to win in OT.

Under the specific circumstances of this game, OT probably made rational sense - MSU was reeling and had to have felt the heavy weight of history slamming down on their little brotherly backs.

What I think the rational choice failed to take into account was that our defense was dragging - we'd have been better off keeping them off the field. And, win or lose, if you go for it, I think it sends a great message from the coaching staff that tells the players how confident they are in their ability to make the critical play when it matters most. I think players (and recruits) love to see it when a coach shows some nut.

Anybody see the end of the Ball State/Toledo game? Ball scored a TD to get within one (about 40 seconds left). They went for two and made it. Up one, they gave up a touchdown and lost (Toledo went for and made a 2 pt. conversion).

If Michigan had come out on top in OT, I don't many of us would be questioning the decision to not go for two. It was amazing that we had come back at all in this game, I think Rich did the smart thing and gave the team their best chance to win.

Put yourself in RR's shoes at the time of his decision. The running game wasn't working for nearly 4 quarters and Tate appeared gassed to the point of collapse. No timeouts to give Tate a rest and very little time to choose a good play for a 2-pt conversion. The offense just rolled down the field twice in a row gaining 160(?) total yards, so, 25 yards shouldn't be a big deal in comparison. Kick the PAT, give Tate time to rest and feel *extremely* fortunate that we get to play an overtime. Running another play for 2 points was not the best choice, IME.

He was gassed most of the last drive, yet he still had to suck it up and make plays, which he did. Also, the last TD was on 3rd & 8. If that pass was incomplete, would he have been too gassed for the 4th down play? If RichRod had called for a 2 pt. convo, Tate wouldn't have thought or said, "Coach, I'm too tired."

I'll buy the statistical or strategic arguments, but not the conditioning one. If it's that much of an issue, take a delay penalty and then try it from 5 yards back, just like they did in the Indiana game.

If fatigue and momentum were an issue, then why did Dantonio elect to go on defense first for the OT? Because strategically it was the right move. Forget the last play, suck it up if you're tired, and get it done.