Would you have gone for two?

[Stinger92860]

Yes, but I'd also go for 2 after every TD

With Stafford this may make sense. If the D plays the run you have options. If the D is spread, you give the ball to the big man. You need to convert 50% to break even. The more I think about this the more I like it.

 

[Stinger92860]

Stafford is good for one yard, I 'm not sure about 2. I guess we could have rolled out with a run pass option.

Stafford averaged 2.2 yards per carry, plus, lol, he appears to be an able receiver. Adding in the one pass he was about 3.5 per touch.

Everytime he touched the ball or we threw with him in, it was a positive play. The 2 short yardage fails were the QB sneak and the handoff to Rosa. Why not ride what’s working at 100%? I understand it won’t always work, but I think they have something here.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The play action they ran earlier in the game that resulted in the TD pass would have given Utah State something to think about too if we had gone for 2.

 

[Dezoworld]

This was a judgement call, so I'm not saying Mora was right or wrong. We have the benefit of hindsight which he didn't.

I would've gone for two. We had momentum. USU's defense was gassed. Their d-line looked especially so. One of the starting DBs left the previous play. We had Jelani "Mack Truck" Stafford ready to explode. 538 analytics tells you it's a good move. We haven't been able to stop USU's offense in the 2nd half, and I felt even less good about our defense vs their offense in OT.

No you don't go for 2 they went for the sure point but it got blocked. If he would've went for 2 and failed then you all would of been complaining and asking why Mora went for it. Defense didn't come to play in the second half. That's where the game was lost

 

[Chin Diesel]

I know I am in the minority but I go for that every time.

It's a close game and you have a chance to win it. No situation in OT has a higher outcome.

If there is a major talent gap and you are the more talented team you go for the tie.

 

[huskymedic]

Do we have a reliable 2 yard play?

Maybe but the two point conversion in CFB is from the 3 yard line

 

[Devland]

Maybe but the two point conversion in CFB is from the 3 yard line

Lol, I knee that. I think I had the number 2 stuck in my head.

 

[UConnDan97]

Uh, yeah no kidding going for 2 is a "riskier" option based on percentages one.

The risk in the context of the season is a lot lower when you're not competing for anything but respectability as opposed to getting a win.

Everything has context, I thought this much is given?

No, the risk doesn't change. That's the point. Math doesn't adjust just because you feel differently about its ramifications. That's the point I'm making...

 

[UConnDan97]

Maybe but the two point conversion in CFB is from the 3 yard line

Thank you!!!

 

[TouchdownHusky]

I give Mora a pass on PAT decision. I would have gone for two. I had visions of DJ Hernandez scoring and throwing the ball into the stands. Oh the excitement that evening: relatively new to D1, starting to make a name, etc.

Now what I won't give the staff the benefit of the doubt on is the "weak ass" 4 and 1 attempt right before half. One thing UConn does well is in these situations. Get Stafford the ball. Don't rush to LOS and try a push with the QB who folded like a rag doll. Lesson? USU hits long TD pass, momentum swings and rest is history.

Also U S's QB out backfired. The backup could tuck and run. And . . . what has been an Achilles heel for the UConn D? Ask NC State, Georgis State, Duke. It's an easy and reliable bail out.

 

[Patman]

There’s a lot of snake oil being sold on this board, and people like you are buying it.

what snake oil? I think losing sucks as much as anybody else. I don't think things are "all right"... I also don't think "fold up the football program" people are going to positively move the program forward. Call that "snake oil" all you want. I don't think all is well but I don't see these other options.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

No, the risk doesn't change. That's the point. Math doesn't adjust just because you feel differently about its ramifications. That's the point I'm making...

The risk absolutely changes - situationally.

The odds of PAT vs 2pt is static in a vacuum, of course.

The consequences/risk of gambling with an awful 0-4 team trying to sneak out a win is a lot different than with a CFP bid at stake.

 

[UConnDan97]

The risk absolutely changes - situationally.

The odds of PAT vs 2pt is static in a vacuum, of course.

The consequences/risk of gambling with an awful 0-4 team trying to sneak out a win is a lot different than with a CFP bid at stake.

The risk is the same. That's why they have charts on this stuff. Your ability to deal with the risk is apparently much different, however...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

The decision not to go for two in that situation isn't even the worst special teams decision we made yesterday. After the 15 yard penalty enforced on a kickoff I don't get why we kicked the ball in the air, allowing a fair catch to give Utah St the ball at the 25. There also were a few returns that we should have fair caught.

In a vacuum it can be claimed that the blocked extra point was the difference between a win and a loss (it actually was the difference between being tied with under a minute remaining and a loss) but there were a number of things that could be pointed to that were of sufficient importance to have cost us the game.

My biggest gripe was that due to the defensive lapse late in the first half, after outplaying the by a massive amount, we went into the locker room with only a ten point lead, which became a three point lead after the first drive of the second half.

They were able to turn a WR screen at the line of scrimmage into a 60+ yard TD pass.

After continually gaining the necessary yardage on third and/or fourth and short with a big backfield, we attempted to rush a quick fourth and short play, turning the ball over on downs while within the red zone.

The biggest positive from yesterday was that we did show life. We also showed a tremendous amount of resilience, which cannot be understated considering the possible morale draining that losing a 17-0 first half lead could cause.

One goal I have for the remainder of the season: I want to see Jelani Stafford split out wide on an offensive play with an empty backfield.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The risk is the same. That's why they have charts on this stuff. Your ability to deal with the risk is apparently much different, however...

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.

 

[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.