OT: LSU's Jeremy Hill scores TD, gives Iowa a chance
Facing 3rd-and-5 at the Iowa 37 with just over two minutes to go, LSU back Jeremy Hill took a handoff, passed the down markers, broke multiple tackles, and scored a TD to put LSU up 21-7 with only 2:02 to go.
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=340010099&period=4
Easy for me to say from the comfort of my couch, but I think LSU would have been ever-so-slightly better off had Hill gone down past the sticks but before the endzone.
Had he been tackled after gaining the first down, LSU would have had four guaranteed pre-snap clock runoffs, and Iowa with only 1 timeout could only prevent one of them. 3 x 40 seconds = 2:00 minutes.
The thought occurred to me as he scored. I dismissed it thinking, in such a low scoring game, what's the difference?
What happens next but Iowa almost takes it to the house on the return, and scores in two plays with the clock stopped before each in just a total of 20 seconds, or with 1:42 remaining.
At this point, Iowa had a chance.
It turns out that LSU would recover the onsides kick, but with only three guaranteed pre-snap clock runoffs and Iowa possessing a timeout, LSU ended up having to punt with 8 seconds left.
You never know...
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:30 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^
I'll raise you a scenario.
You are up by 1 point when your team scores a touchdown late in the game because the opposing team let you score in order to get the ball back. Now you are up by 7 with the PAT coming up. Do you go for 2 points and effectively end the game with a miss being relatively safe considering the other team has to score a td and get a 2 pointer to win. Or do you play it safe by kicking the XP and going up by 8?
I always felt that in these situations you should go for 2 to be up "two scores". With overtime and a QB without a broken foot most coaches wouldn't try to beat you in regulation even if they did score the last minute TD.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
I say go for 2. You're basically playing with house money in that one
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
January 3rd, 2014 at 2:29 AM ^
I am in this school. And I think its a no brainer.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:50 PM ^
Kick the PAT. That forces the other team to not only score a TD but convert a 2-pointer just to tie. That puts you in a great position.
If you go for two, a successful conversion clinches it, but that happens less than 50% of the time. An unsuccessful conversion (which is greater than a 50% chance) opens the door to OT for the other team if it can get a TD.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^
The only scenario that matters is if they score--you win if they don't, and I think it's fair to say that they're equally likely to score whether you're ahead 7 or 8. For simplicity I"m going to assume that kicked extra points are certain, which they aren't quite.
Say the probability of getting two is X. Then, if you go for two, you win if you make it, if you don't and they score it's a tie. Probability of you winning in regulation is X.
If you kick it and they score, you win if they don't make it and it's a tie if they do. Probability of you winning in regulation is 1-X.
Break even is X=.5 Greater than that you should go for it, less than that you should kick and make the other team go for it.
I'm pretty sure the chances of making it when you go for two are less than 50/50, because if they weren't everyone would be going for two all the time. That means the right play is to kick it.
I've assumed X is the same for both teams. In the more general case it boils down to this: which is more likely, that you will make it when you go for two, or that you will stop them when they go for two? If I'm right that the probability of a successful conversion is always less than 50%, you should always kick.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:15 PM ^
Being up 7 or 8 points has no bearing on if they score. But if you go up 9 points they will be deflated needing 2 posessions to win.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
That's if it succeeds. Nationally, the 2-point conversion rate is around 40-45%. PATs, meanwhile, are around 95% converted.
If you go for two, the most likely outcome is that you'll be up seven. If you go for one, the most likely outcome is that you'll be up eight.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:25 PM ^
But would a coach who just completed a "miracle comback" by letting the opposing team score and then getting a TD be willing to risk losing by going for 2 to win. I like the 40 - 45% odds of giving them the ball back and having it be essentially garbage time vs the 55 - 60% chance of giving them the ball back with a chance to extend the game.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:40 PM ^
It's an interesting idea, but I'd feel pretty secure with an 8-point lead. The difference between seven and eight to me is big.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:49 PM ^
When it comes down to it I'd probably kick the XP and be up 8. It is a fun scenario to talk about though. My junior year of High School we allowed our cross city rivals to score being down 1 point (we had just previously gone for 2 and the win, never ask emotional kids what to do during a football game) and at the time I remember thinking what if they just go for 2 and go up 9. Needless to say they kicked and we threw and interception on the next drive.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:54 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:38 PM ^
from getting a 2 point stop to getting a 2 point conversion.
I think it's equivalent to Muttley's Crazy OT format.
After the coin toss, the winner gets to choose to play offense or defense on a 2 point try. If the 2 point try succeeds, the team on offense wins. If it fails, the team on defense wins.
Which would you pick if you won the toss? Offense or defense?
January 8th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
It would depend on my offense and my defense. If I'm Oregon, I'm going for offense.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:58 PM ^
It's one of the best chances ever to run a fake XP. The other team will assume you're going for one to go up eight points. The way NFL coaches especially think so conservatively, they'll assume the XP attempt without a second thought.
If that's too bold, the next-best idea is just to kick the XP. Put the onus on the other team to absolutely must have the TD and 2PC. That way you know what's coming. Make them have to execute, don't put the onus on your team to pull off the (relatively) low-percentage play.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^
Not a bad idea.
If the opposing team is letting you score to take the ball away from you why not go for two and try to take the ball away from them by forcing them to need 2 possessions.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
No way. Take the the extra point. The worst thing that can happen next is the other team scores, gets a two-point conversion, and play overtime.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
A very logical approach but if you miss the 2 point conversion and they score the TD it is very likely that they will kick the PAT and you have overtime anyways.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:27 PM ^
If you go for 2: You either win, tie or lose.
If you kick the extra point: You either win or you tie.
The only scenario where losing in regulation is possible (barring a freak miracle, mind you), is if you go for two. Granted, the losing part of that situation depends you failing to convert while the other team in turn scores again and successfully attempts a 2 pt conversion for some asinine reason. Regardless, the fact that losing would now be on the table makes that decision quite simple, IMO. You kick it.
That said, this is a quite fascinating scenario and I'd imagine the probability of what is smarter option is probably damn near the flip of a coin.
January 3rd, 2014 at 1:57 AM ^
I agree with the answer, but it's not because going for 2 opens the possibility of losing. For two reasons that's not that important:
1) Most importantly, you don't really care whether you lose in regulation or lose in overtime. Going for 1 doesn't remove the odds of losing, just losing in regulation.
2) It's all about relative percentages, not just whether the possibility exists. As a hypothetical, let's say option 1 gives us a 10% chance of winning and a 90% chance of tying, while option 2 gives a 90% chance of winning, 5% chance of tying, and 5% chance of losing. Losing isn't possible in option 1, but it's probably still much better to go with option 2. One reason why the Woody Hayes quote "there are three things that can happen when you throw the ball and two of them are bad" drives me crazy.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:31 PM ^
wow..
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:38 PM ^
That could be a good question for The Mathlete or someone.
Which two possession lead is better. A 2 TD lead and the other team has 2 minutes and the ball.
Or a 10 point lead where the other team has 45 seconds or so and the ball
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:55 PM ^
...to work out just how much time would be left. If you can run out the clock, you should take a knee and get it over with, as Jones-Drew famously did a couple of years ago. (Corollary: if they can run out the clock, you should let them score and see if they think of this.)
Muttley seems to think there'd be two seconds left on change of possession. That would at least make it worth thinking about...and of course it will always take a little longer than just the time on the snap clock because it takes a few seconds to unpile and set the ball.
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:54 PM ^
during the action of the 4 kneel-down plays. With 2:02 left, you can take 2:00 off the clock by standing around in the huddle, leaving a need to take 2 seconds off the clock during 4 live plays.
Game over. 14-7 LSU.
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:50 PM ^
I have never in my lifetime seen a team lose in kneel down situation that went into the victory formation.
I've seen teams in a kneel-down situation handoff, fumble, and lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_at_the_Meadowlands
I've seen teams not in a kneel-down situation do the victory formation, leave time on the clock, and lose. See Sam Wyche and the Bengals Memorable Moment #32. http://www.bengals.com/team/40-memorable-moments-31-40.html
But I've never seen a team that was in a kneel down situation lose from the Victory Formation.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:33 PM ^
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^
You take the points. It makes it a two score game and more importantly a two touchdown game. You take your chances, and don't risk fumbling a snap or handoff.
What you don't do is kickoff to Iowa. Squib, pooch, OOB, something other than a straight up kickoff.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:35 PM ^
Had Iowa been able to score more points, they may have had a better chance to win.
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:17 PM ^
you went to commentator school! Expect a call from the B1G Network.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^
played LSU? Bad dream or just a continuation of the nightmare that was 2013.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:41 PM ^
How do I hustle the market?
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:46 PM ^
Meaningless bowl, plus chance to score a TD? Can't fault the guy.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:48 PM ^
Since it was apparent that Iowa wasn't going to tackle him on that play no matter what they did (seriously, watch the play), I think the best thing for him to do would be to run around in cicles between the tackles for 2:00, and then make his way into the endzone for the insurance touchdown as time ran out.
But seriously, take the points and trust that your defense, which has pretty well shut them down all day, can manage to protect a two score game with 1:40 to go.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:51 PM ^
I didn't realize that Iowa's two scoring drives covered a grand total of 5 yards.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:59 PM ^
Iowa actually ran 67 plays in this game and only got 233 yards out of all of them, which is slightly less than 3.5 yards per play on average, not to mention about 0.2 or so points per play. It was not as if they were moving the ball with great ease against LSU, so leaving them a few minutes to potentially score probably was a relatively low-risk proposition for the Tigers.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^
Keep in mind the risks of what you're saying. Let's say the RB takes a knee beyond the sticks. If you play it safe, and kneel three times to kill the clock and then punt, you're still up only one score with maybe about that eight seconds remaining. 40 seconds isn't the right assumption, 36-38 is better, because you have to get the play off. So Iowa still has basically the same chance; the ball with about 8 seconds to go and down one score.
The alternative is to go for one more first down, which would end the game. But that opens up the risk of fumbling. As Washington State taught us against CSU, it's a very real risk with disastrous consequences.
In the first scenario, scoring the touchdown is clearly better, because it took a pretty extraordinary set of circumstances just to get to that same 8-second point. I'd prefer the extra score and take my chances on that stuff not happening. In the second alternative, the second TD is far preferable to the risk of fumbling.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:10 PM ^
But when you say "Iowa still has basically the same chance" you're disregarding the chance they had at getting the onside kick. After they score their first TD, I'm sure their odds of tying the game are significantly higher than their odds of scoring after taking over with 8 seconds left after a punt.
Really, the question is which is more likely: (1) Score twice in two minutes, starting from a kickoff, or (2) score once in 8 seconds from deep in your own territory. I'm guessing the odds of #1 are slightly greater.
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:58 PM ^
Why?
Delay of games don't hurt the team in the Victory Formation.
January 2nd, 2014 at 3:52 PM ^
mainly because Iowa football 2013 = Michigan football 2012 with the same stupid 8-5 record and embarrassingly dumb loss in the Outback Bowl followed by cries of "SEC!, SEC!"
Next year Iowa football will be predicted to be a Big Ten title contender, but then inexplicably lose to Iowa State go 7-6 or worse under Ferentz.
Iowa finished 8-5 and was 0-3 vs. Top 25 teams. And better than Michigan.
I think this is the part where we are admitted to a state facility for manic depression.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:05 PM ^
EDIT: I made a mistake in my original post; please disregard.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:08 PM ^
An Iowa comeback would've left Hill feeling suckerpunched.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:22 PM ^
of going about 70 yds, getting the onside kick and then going about 50 yds in 2 minutes is very low. About the same as fumbling the ball in the situation you presented.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:46 PM ^
Fumbles in victory formation are extremely rare, to the point that I can't remember ever seeing one lost.
I don't think you do this unless you're ready to kneel down.
January 2nd, 2014 at 4:50 PM ^
that a Les Miles-coached team would mis-manage the clock near the end of a game?
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:59 PM ^
+1000
January 2nd, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^
1. how about piss away the time and kick a field goal on 4th down, still making it a 2-score game.
2. make your TD's count double. easy way to win, bet you wish you thought of it...