The Two Point Conversion When Eight Down

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do coaches know that they losing 5% more games than they should be in this specific situation? Do coaches know/understand the math that says that going for 2 is a 5% better move?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they understand it. Prof. Romer proved in his research that a team facing fourth-and-goal within five yards of the end zone is better off, on average, trying for a touchdown. I'm sure the coaches that read his research understood it. You have to be smart to be an NFL head coach. Many probably agree with the math behind it.

Now ask yourself if NFL coaches are going to start going for the TD on 4th and goal from the 4 yd line. Doubtful. So I think other factors are making them choose the conservative play, other than not understanding the math.

One of the attractive aspects of poker is that your results (usually) effect you only. So if you know pushing all-in with 8-4 offsuit is the right percentage play, you do it. It's a lot harder to make that play when 60,000 fans (many who don't understand the math behind your decision) have a vested interest in your decision and will scream for your job if they decide you took a bonehead gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah....coaches are aware...
we just had the fourth down debate in sporting events forum. There was an ESPN article getting many of the coaches' takes.
They are aware of this stuff...they just don't buy it! Rightfully so IMO.
I got into a big debate on the Romer paper as alot of his assumptions just seemed outlandish to me, much as the assumptions here, in the OP, are ridiculous IMO.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,
I haven't read the entire thread yet, but want to give my reaction having read the initial post and argument. I'll go back and read later.

First, a 50-50 OT proposition is a huge mistake IMO. Given that one team has scored two touchdowns in a row to tie the game, I feel they are much stronger than 50/50 to win the game.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is 50/50. Whoever wins the coinflip is probably 70/30 (i have not looked up data to back this up)

[/ QUOTE ]

get back to me when you have a reasonable smaple size on how teams that have come back from 14 late do in overtime. I know it happened today and that team lost (Tampa Bay). Although, it clearly looked like they were heavy favorites entering the OT and a turnover flipped the game around.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do coaches know that they losing 5% more games than they should be in this specific situation? Do coaches know/understand the math that says that going for 2 is a 5% better move?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they understand it. Prof. Romer proved in his research that a team facing fourth-and-goal within five yards of the end zone is better off, on average, trying for a touchdown. I'm sure the coaches that read his research understood it. You have to be smart to be an NFL head coach. Many probably agree with the math behind it.

Now ask yourself if NFL coaches are going to start going for the TD on 4th and goal from the 4 yd line. Doubtful. So I think other factors are making them choose the conservative play, other than not understanding the math.

One of the attractive aspects of poker is that your results (usually) effect you only. So if you know pushing all-in with 8-4 offsuit is the right percentage play, you do it. It's a lot harder to make that play when 60,000 fans (many who don't understand the math behind your decision) have a vested interest in your decision and will scream for your job if they decide you took a bonehead gamble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there are probably plenty of coaches who "understand" the math behind it. However, they don't truly embrace it; that is, they accept that it is +EV, but they don't truly understand what EV means. We see the situation all the time in gambling - someone knows that red, red, red, red has no effect on the next spin at the roullette wheel, but they are far more inclined to bet on black anyway. A better example is a blackjack card-counting friend of mine. The mathemetically correct play is to stand on 16 V 10 whenever the count is infinitesimally positive, but he only does it when the count is moderately positive and up. I have actually heard him (and many others) say, "I know that's what the computers say, but it just doesn't seem right." I'm sure that's what's going on with the football coaches. They may understand that the "computers" say that going for 2 is best, but they don't understand that the computers are the best.

~MagicMan

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I got into a big debate on the Romer paper as alot of his assumptions just seemed outlandish to me, much as the assumptions here, in the OP, are ridiculous IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the assumptions in the OP are ridiculous. Why would going for 2 when down by 14 be ridiculous if it improves your chances of winning the game?

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I got into a big debate on the Romer paper as alot of his assumptions just seemed outlandish to me, much as the assumptions here, in the OP, are ridiculous IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the assumptions in the OP are ridiculous. Why would going for 2 when down by 14 be ridiculous if it improves your chances of winning the game?

[/ QUOTE ]



did you read the assumptions?
[ QUOTE ]
Assume a two point attempt is 42%, a one point attempt is 98%, overtime is a 50-50 proposition, and there is time for one more score at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's been shown that a one-point attempt is higher than 98%. It's also strongly argued that OT is not a 50-50 proposition. One also has to wonder whether 42% is a sustainable rate in a NFL where the 2-point play becomes more expected and a part of defensive plans.

Also, if a team misses the 2 the first time, do you still think they are 42% the second time?

Football isn't some independent trial game and trying to reduce it to that is an insult to the game. This isn't craps.

[iggymcfly]

While there are at least strong arguments whether you should kick extra points both times or go for two both times when down by two, I think we'd all agree that what Mike Riley did today was patently ridiculous. Kicks the extra point to get within 7, then goes for two after getting within one. Yeah, it worked because Bernard got into the end zone, but that can't be the right play. As someone who cheered for Oregon State to get back and cover after being down all 4th quarter, I feel very betrayed.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
While there are at least strong arguments whether you should kick extra points both times or go for two both times when down by two, I think we'd all agree that what Mike Riley did today was patently ridiculous. Kicks the extra point to get within 7, then goes for two after getting within one. Yeah, it worked because Bernard got into the end zone, but that can't be the right play. As someone who cheered for Oregon State to get back and cover after being down all 4th quarter, I feel very betrayed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you believe your chances of getting 2 are greater than 50%, then you should go for 2 when you are down by one. (Of course, he also should have gone for 2 when he was down by 8).

[bb88]

I was down by 14 playing Madden and went for two, and John Madden said he had "no idea why he's going for it right here". I'm sold. PAT it is.

[Michael Davis]

"If you believe your chances of getting 2 are greater than 50%"

No. Especially not in a college overtime structure where there are vast differences in kickers' abilities.

-Michael

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you believe your chances of getting 2 are greater than 50%"

No. Especially not in a college overtime structure where there are vast differences in kickers' abilities.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was still assuming that overtime was 50/50. Obviously if you believe that your chances in overtime are greater than your chances of making a two point conversion, then you should kick the PAT*.

*This is assuming that the PAT is 100%, which it is not.