Would you have gone for two?

[Dizzy21]

You keep talking around the same point that everyone is in agreement on. A PAT vs 2pt odds for a given team are the same whether they are 12-0 or 0-12. We all agree that is one data point.

The risk of converting or not converting is absolutely situationally dependent, which I guess is what you're referring to as "dealing with the risk". I don't see how the scales tip to less consequence when your season is essentially shot and a big conversion that gets a win is a huge momentum changer.

@UConnDan97 is talking about the probability of the risk occurring. That will not change based on if you are 12-0 or 0-12. You are talking about the severity of the impact if that risk did occur. That changes based on circumstance of if you are 12-0 or 0-12. One may be willing to take on the lesser probability option if the impact of the risk is less and that is what you are saying.

 

[UConnDan97]

You keep talking around the same point that everyone is in agreement on. A PAT vs 2pt odds for a given team are the same whether they are 12-0 or 0-12. We all agree that is one data point.

The risk of converting or not converting is absolutely situationally dependent, which I guess is what you're referring to as "dealing with the risk". I don't see how the scales tip to less consequence when your season is essentially shot and a big conversion that gets a win is a huge momentum changer.

... because every win helps recruiting and every loss hurts it. You just can't roll the dice because you want to say "f-it, the season is over." And that's why Mora did the right thing.

Let's spend our energy focusing on how not to get a "free point" blocked in the future...

 

[CL82]

In retrospect going for two would have made a lot of sense but imagine the criticism everywhere, especially from those who gain some feeling of superiority by criticizing kids who have already accomplished far more in less than a quarter century of life than those criticizing have in 30+, 40+, 50+, 60+, 70+ years of life (which we seem to have an abundance of on the boneyard) if we went for two and didn't make it.

I like the Stafford decoy screen pass option as a two point conversion play. Stopping Stafford was definitely in their heads.

One thing I like about Jim Mora is he explains his thinking. He decided not to go for two because he felt as if his Offense was on a roll and his defense good stop Utah State from getting into field-goal range within 35 seconds. Of course if he does stop them and we're up by one, that's game isn't it?

It's a choice. Personally I like being aggressive and going for the win but it's not an unreasonable call either way.

 

[Patman]

... because every win helps recruiting and every loss hurts it. You just can't roll the dice because you want to say "f-it, the season is over." And that's why Mora did the right thing.

Let's spend our energy focusing on how not to get a "free point" blocked in the future...

You just gave the reason to go for it. Look. Im a numbers guy by trade but if you don't see the role of emotions in the game and in the system I cannot help you. You need to give the team a shot in the arm and say that we gambled on ourselves. Especially with the offense has been this season. You're basically rewarding the effort. If you lose the two point, you were given the chance.

To me this is the psychology call and not a numbers call. It's a play for the other 7 games on the schedule

 

[UConnDan97]

You just gave the reason to go for it. Look. Im a numbers guy by trade but if you don't see the role of emotions in the game and in the system I cannot help you. You need to give the team a shot in the arm and say that we gambled on ourselves. Especially with the offense has been this season. You're basically rewarding the effort. If you lose the two point, you were given the chance.

To me this is the psychology call and not a numbers call. It's a play for the other 7 games on the schedule

If you're playing by the psychology of it all and not the numbers, then why would you go for 2?? If I'm in the huddle, I'm saying to my team, "we've got the better team, we've got the momentum, we've got home field, and they can't beat us in OT."

Whether you go by numbers or by psychology, Mora made the right choice. Hell, most of the people arguing to go for 2 points on this board don't even realize that we had to go 3 yards to achieve it, not 2 yards...

 

[navery12]

If you're playing by the psychology of it all and not the numbers, then why would you go for 2?? If I'm in the huddle, I'm saying to my team, "we've got the better team, we've got the momentum, we've got home field, and they can't beat us in OT."

Whether you go by numbers or by psychology, Mora made the right choice. Hell, most of the people arguing to go for 2 points on this board don't even realize that we had to go 3 yards to achieve it, not 2 yards...

You can spin the psychology of it anyway you want it, because it's all impossible to prove. If I wanted to argue against your point I'd just take the same exact quote you said and just change the conclusion. And neither one is any more "correct" than the other; "We've got the better team, we've got the momentum, we've got home field, and there's no way they're stopping us here."

 

[UConnDan97]

You can spin the psychology of it anyway you want it, because it's all impossible to prove. If I wanted to argue against your point I'd just take the same exact quote you said and just change the conclusion. And neither one is any more "correct" than the other; "We've got the better team, we've got the momentum, we've got home field, and there's no way they're stopping us here."

It's not spin. Ultimately, it's math. There's a reason why few teams in college go for 2 unless they have to. I didn't think I had to explain math to a UConn audience, but here I am I guess...

 

[navery12]

It's not spin. Ultimately, it's math. There's a reason why few teams in college go for 2 unless they have to. I didn't think I had to explain math to a UConn audience, but here I am I guess...

Using psychology is exactly that, spin. It's not a tangible thing and is impossible to prove. And the reason why so few college coaches go for 2 is they all have a fundamental misunderstanding of analytics.

If they went with what the math says you'd see a ton of 2 point conversions and very few punts. But they'd also be burned at the stake by most of this board who is stuck in traditional decision making

 

[ConnHuskBask]

@UConnDan97 is talking about the probability of the risk occurring. That will not change based on if you are 12-0 or 0-12. You are talking about the severity of the impact if that risk did occur. That changes based on circumstance of if you are 12-0 or 0-12. One may be willing to take on the lesser probability option if the impact of the risk is less and that is what you are saying.

How in the world can you or @UConnDan97 conclude based on my post that I'm not arguing that point?

 

[Dizzy21]

How in the world can you or @UConnDan97 conclude based on my post that I'm not arguing that point?

Because you said the risk of converting is situationally dependent when you were talking about the impact. You also said consequence/risk is a whole lot different when the team is going for a CFP spot. The consequence or impact sure is, but the risk stays the same.

 

[Patman]

It's not spin. Ultimately, it's math. There's a reason why few teams in college go for 2 unless they have to. I didn't think I had to explain math to a UConn audience, but here I am I guess...

My UConn STEM Ph.D. keeps me warm at night and I know it doesn't answer everything. It taught me that the world is math plus context.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

You keep talking around the same point that everyone is in agreement on. A PAT vs 2pt odds for a given team are the same whether they are 12-0 or 0-12. We all agree that is one data point.

Because you said the risk of converting is situationally dependent when you were talking about the impact. You also said consequence/risk is a whole lot different when the team is going for a CFP spot. The consequence or impact sure is, but the risk stays the same.

I'm quite literally not saying that, see my post above.

The consequence/risk for the second piece (all semantics) is what I'm arguing. Taking a 2pt gamble doesn't have the same downside for a team wallowing in Neverland than it does for Ohio State.

 

[UConnDan97]

My UConn STEM Ph.D. keeps me warm at night and I know it doesn't answer everything. It taught me that the world is math plus context.

You claim that and claim being a numbers guy, and yet you've put yourself on the wrong side of the numbers. Interesting. Well, at least you're warm at night...

 

[Dream Jobbed 2.0]

Do we have a reliable 2 yard play? Rosa repeatedly gets stuffed in short yardage situations. Stafford is good for one yard, I 'm not sure about 2. I guess we could have rolled out with a run pass option.

All you need is the threat of Stafford. Similar to the play we used to tie it at 24

 

[UConnJim]

Here's the math. 2 point conversion make % is 40% to 55%, so flip of a coin. Extra point make % is 90% to 95%. And, the 2 point conversion is from the 3, so making 3 yards by Stafford is a big ask.

In OT, I think UConn had the advantage as UConn was running with ease and had Stafford for a 1 yard situation. Pass defense is easier on a short field. I kick the extra point.

 

[Scoe]

While we debate this should Washington went for 2 today instead instead of playing for OT the Eagles wouldve had 2 seconds left I lean toward saying yes more to UConn since our game had 40 seconds left vs 2 seconds.

 

[huskymedic]

Here's the math. 2 point conversion make % is 40% to 55%, so flip of a coin. Extra point make % is 90% to 95%. And, the 2 point conversion is from the 3, so making 3 yards by Stafford is a big ask.

In OT, I think UConn had the advantage as UConn was running with ease and had Stafford for a 1 yard situation. Pass defense is easier on a short field. I kick the extra point.

UConn was 38 for 38 on PATs over all of last year and this year prior to the block by USU.

 

[Patman]

You claim that and claim being a numbers guy, and yet you've put yourself on the wrong side of the numbers. Interesting. Well, at least you're warm at night...

Because I don't treat the numbers like they're a religion. They aren't.

 

[UConnDan97]

Because I don't treat the numbers like they're a religion. They aren't.

Nope. They're not a religion, because they don't require a belief system to work. You seem to be relying on your belief system instead of actual numbers and data. Not really something that people with PhD's in STEM are known for, but hey, you do you man...

 

[Duncan Idaho]

Yes, now knowing that the PAT was blocked.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Put another way, poll coaches with this question.

Rather than play a whole game, you have the ball on the 3-yard line and you get one play to win/lose the game, do you do that or play the whole 60 minutes?