Sous Chef said:

I honestly have no clue but maybe he was butt sore about TW and Pot Roast leaving? Curious if any insidhers know.

Click to expand...

turek420845 said:

Why have teams been going for two when they are only going to be down by 7 if they kick the extra point? If you miss the conversion, then you will have to go for two if you score again regardless. I just don't understand why teams have been doing that. Just seems stupid and unnecessary.

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

AnAlYtIcS

You only have to get 1 two point conversion to tie or win in 2 tries vs. 1 to win or lose if you kick the first one.

Of course this operates under the shaky assumption that with 11 minutes to go in the game the other team is done scoring

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

Yeah I'd just like to see the actual data on how often sometimes these cockamamie schemes pay off because I think the support for it is mostly theoretical.

Click to expand...

turek420845 said:

What I don't understand is that why go for it on the previous touchdown. If you miss, then you have to do it again. If you wait to go for two on the second touchdown, then that seems more favorable. Why possibly make yourself got for two twice rather than once.

Click to expand...

Baron Winnebago said:

It's really just about splitting the risk across 2 tries instead of 1.

Suppose you're a team that converts 60% of your 2 point conversion attempts.

If you go for for it when you score to go down 1, you have a 60% chance of winning (40% chance of failure)

If you go for it on 2 tries, there's an 84% probability of converting one or both (drops probability of failure to 16%)

Of course if you succeed on the first try (down 8) which has an equal probability of success as down 1, you get an even higher chance of going up because PATs are 99%+

At least that's what I think the rationale is

Click to expand...