Have I Discovered Another Mathematical Football Coaching Error?

[lastchance]

It's down 4, not up by 4.

[Victor]

damn i even read the post twice so i didnt say anything stupid.

[ProfessorBen]

But if you miss the 2 point conversion you can't tie the game with a field goal!

Edit: I will concede that a safety gives us the tie if we convert. Now I see why you think we need a good defense to go for this, but that also requires a good kick-off, so we do in fact need a good kicker.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
If you score a touchdown with five minutes or so left in the game and that puts you down by exactly four points, go for two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't you ask for 2pt conversion stats? If you assume ~50% (I don't know what the real number is, and I'm sure it varies a lot based on matchups for individual tries), then it looks like you're clearly right.

[VarlosZ]

This should help. So might this, for those who are into this sort of thing.

So, based on the table in the first link:

1) About 21-25%.

2) About 33-36%

Not based on the table, but I'd say that (3) is about 2-5%.

Note that the table is giving numbers for starting from your own 10 or 30 (not your 20), and with 2 minutes left (not 2:30), so my numbers are just guesses as to where the numbers in OP's scenarios would fall.

[MacGuyV]

1. 15-20%

2. 50%

3. 5%


Obv. I think the discrepancy in difficulty between getting a TD & FG in this spot is a lot wider than most.

[SuperUberBob]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't just my opinion. Many experts have shown that some of these errors are egregious. The apologists invoke psychology to defend the coaches. But that is usually disengenuous because the coach had no idea that psychology would have to be his excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psychology isn't the reason that coaches refuse to gamble in some spots. It's because their jobs are on the line if they do something drastic and blow it. Unlike professional gamblers, the rest of the world and team ownership are results-oriented. So, if a coach were to do something retarded and still win, nobody would give a damn. But doing something that is mathematically correct won't change the fact that an unconventional decision cost your team the playoffs.

You can do something that is mathematically correct in the long run. But in the end, what matters is the here and now rather than other games in the future.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
First let me say that the general principle in this and many of these scenarios, is the average person or coach's incorrect gut feeling about going for ties that have to be played off. They just don't gamble enough when they can go for the win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you saw the Eagles - Patriots game.

The Eagles were down by 3 with a 2 and 4 at about the 29 with a little less than 4 minutes to go.

They went for a touchdown right then and there. At first I hated the call based on them giving up the much easier goal of getting a first down

I don't know if the touchdown pass was the best choice but there is some merit to "gambling" for a win before they hit the red zone where it is much harder to score a touchdown as the defense gets compacted.

[Hoya]

It isn't easier to score touchdowns from the 29 than it is from, say, the 10.

[ClarkNasty]

[ QUOTE ]
If you score a touchdown with five minutes or so left in the game and that puts you down by exactly four points, go for two.


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.