Should Michigan go for two after every touchdown?

We've been fine for the most part from the PAT standpoint, so I don't think going for two would be really necessary. Going for the 4th down conversion instead of the field goal is what I think we should do.

I don't want them to do anything that Lane Kiffin thinks is a good idea.

No...

Sorry, I just dont think it would be in the best interest of the Defense to start getting down points if we were missing them...

I think Denard should be the place kicker now. I bet he can boot those balls with them untied shoelaces he's got going on.

No. Lane is a dumb ass if he does it we need to stay away from it.

(I think it would be higher than 50% at least, which would make it statistically a good decision to go for two).

So you think that, do you?

The problem with this scenario is that on the goaline, teams will not be afraid to blitz. Mostly because for 3 yds is the same as beat for 300. So, the question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to put denard in the situation where; he can find open receivers in 1v1 coverage on slants/ins/posts but be staring down a blitzing 240lb linebacker?
Secondly, weve scored what.. 14 TDs this year? and were 13/14 on PATs.. so unless you can reasonably expect to go higher than 1/2 on 2pts (not counting times when going for 2 might lose you a game by 1 pt) when the average statistically over the years is 40%.. you'll be on the losing end of the points gamble. 

http://www.docsports.com/two-point-conversion.html

I've made nearly every PAT this year.  So you'd need about a 50% conversion rate on the 2pt tries to tie what we've got now.  50% conversion seems VERY high to me.  So we are better off doing the PAT with an occasional miss (and do the occasional 2pt try when necessary)

NO this isnt madden

Bad idea.  Until our kickers show that they cannot make extra points (and if that happens, I will kick the damn things myself!!), we should continue to go this safe route. 

No.  Anything Lane Kiffin does is stupid and should not be replicated by any other coach in America.  RR should go for it on most 4th downs when we're in normal teams field goal range.  Hopefully RR's cry to the UM students will produce a kicker named Tacopants who hasn't missed a field goal since 1976.

The variance is too high.

You can reasonably expect every PAT to succeed and give you 1 point.  While the expected value may be the same, the variance would mean you could go on streaks where you make unnecessary 2 point conversions, then go on streaks of missing them when you really need it.

Think about it this way, the PAT right now is a fixed coin that lands on heads 95% of the time. The 2PC is a fair coin.  It might alternate Heads and Tails, but it can also go HHHHH and TTTTT.  If you're the better team and trying to reduce game variance, take the PAT.  If you're the worse team and have nothing to lose, you might as well go for the 2PC to create more variance.

we might need one despite the Mathlete's analysis.  The more practice the better.

I say no on this.  As opposed to going more on 4th down, which I am in favor of, statistically 2-point conversions are not a good bet.  With only 10 yards to defend the defense is too compressed to risk the point on one play.  With first and goal on the 2 or 3 yard line it often takes 2-3 plays to get it in - not a great gamble with only one.

Regardless if the math says you do it or don't, RR can't.  The first time he missed he'd get killed in the media and RR can't afford that right now...mabye 2 years down the road, but not now.

Remember how the spread offense was received, how the new punt formation was received, how the stadium expansion was received?  The Michigan fanbase and locial media is pretty old-school conservative when it comes to change, real or perceived.  It can be acheived, but it takes some "political capital" to make it happen without torches and pitchforks coming out.

I would say no.  The kicker is better than 90% right now, which means the Two Point Conversion percentage would have to be better than 50% to net more points which I don't think that it is.  Of course, 2 point conversions are usually gone for in situations where the defense is expecting them so that might help their odds.  And I'll agree with the person above that the extra point is usually considered the safe bet so it is often better to go for 1 instead of 2 lest one gets crucified by folks like Drew Sharp.

But bearing in mind that PATs are almost good, the case may be shut before it is open, kind of a thing.

prepared to be like "Oh you got to be kidding me, this guy is an ass!" and then I really got to thinking.  Denard gets two yards before anybody realizes that the ball has been snapped. Maybe not go for two everytime, but it actually is an interesting point.

We know he can punt... why not give him a shot if the coaches haven't already (which they probably have).  Its not like we have much to lose. 

Kiffin sucks. Mark my words. Don't use his ideas.

I doubt Lane lasts very long .... anywhere, talk about a slime-ball !!!

However, I have always held that we need to have a "sure-fire" 2 point conversion play.  This needs to be practiced every day (like MSU's little giant).  Come out in the "swinging gate" formation, loved the fake FG where you act like you have too many men on the field - but actually the guy running off is simply in motion.  If the D ignores him, you simply throw him the ball.  Multiple unusual sets, the holder runs the option, or throws ... I don't care what it is -  but have some trick up your sleeve to get a 2 pointer.

Sure would have come in handy at MSU last year !!!    Go Blue !