(09-13-2013 07:25 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  All of y'all are wrong. You got for two after both touchdowns. Like someone already posted, the 2-point works 47% of the time. So, if you try it twice, you've got a 94% chance of getting at least one 2-point conversion, and you only need to make one 2-point conversion to tie. So you've got a 94% chance of getting to OT.

You need a two point conversion and a one point conversion to tie. Missing the first two point conversion made it a 9 point game instead of 8.

(09-13-2013 06:36 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 05:01 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:58 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  If you don't get the two point conversion the time in which you are arguing is a three possession game is still a three possession game regardless of when you go for the two point conversion. Again, the dynamics still haven't changed from the four minute mark until there are zeroes on the clock.

Like the article said, down by eight is a one and a half possession game and illusion to think otherwise. It's only a one possession game if the two point conversion can be guaranteeed or at least guaranteed to the same probability as an extra point, which obviously it cannot.

OK, if you're gonna count the "extra point" (1 or 2) as a possession/score then the whole numbering system changes, but not the same basic facts.

15 points, in your approach, is a minimum FOUR possession game with two touchdowns, one 1 point conversion and one 2 point conversion. Four possessions....now, in possession one you score a touchdown and in possession two you make the 2 pointer and you need only two possessions to get your needed 7 points (touchdown and extra point kick). MISS the 2 pointer and you need THREE possessions to get your needed 9 points.

Not sure what the point of all that is, but your right the same basic facts don't change.

Tech scored a touchdown with 3:43 to go. Because the two point conversion is not guaranteed you needed nine points at that moment to tie the game and a finite amount of time to do it. I simplify here. I want to know right now if I still need nine over that final 3:43 or do I only need seven. And I'm making the decision at this moment that gives me the best chance and most amount of time to manage the game if the two point conversion fails. As much as I want to have confidence that my team is going to make the conversion I have to assume that we don't make it just in case. If we do make it's gravy. If not I know what I have to do right now not when there are only seconds on the clock remaining.

If I need eight points with 3:43 left I know that I only need a touchdown and two point conversion, but as I've already said I have to assume that two points is not a assured and now I have less time and control over the outcome. Even if I get the ball back, drain the clock and score to make it a two point game, I'm screwed if the two pointer fails. I have no time left. I still need another possession, which as I've stated all along is the same number of possessions I needed doing it the other way, but perhaps I have some time left to get it done.

I guess some people are happier with a two point loss instead of a nine point loss. I don't get that. I want to win the game. My odds are better at pulling off the miraculous comeback if I have more information earlier. As the one article states. Knowledge is power. But if it makes people feel better to lose by two instead of nine ok, but for me I don't really give a turd about that.

There is zero objective of losing by either 2 or 9 - the objective is to win and in order to do that you need to have the ball at least the minimum number of times it takes you to score the needed points. To do that with 3:43 left in the fourth the objective is to reduce the total maximum number of times you need the ball on offense in order to win. In your scenario there is a 50/50 chance (two point conversion success rate and it's actually about 47% successful) that you will need offensive possession two more times since the maximum you could score with a single possession is 8. If you kick the extra point there is an approximate 98/2 chance that you will need only one more offensive possession.

It's that simple ... 50/50 that you will need two more offensive possessions at a point when you are kicking off with 3:43 left in the game OR 98/2 that you can pull out that win with only one more offensive possession.

There is zero logical argument for going for two under the circumstances LaTech found themselves with 3:43 left in regulation.

As an MBA who has studied statistics quite a bit and worked in risk management this might be the worst example of math on a message board I've ever seen.

Don't mean to be rude, and I actually get the point you're trying to make but if you're going to use math and probabilities to try to back up a point it would be helpful if it was legitimate. Mathematically, this is simply factually flawed and inaccurate.

(09-13-2013 07:25 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  All of y'all are wrong. You got for two after both touchdowns. Like someone already posted, the 2-point works 47% of the time. So, if you try it twice, you've got a 94% chance of getting at least one 2-point conversion, and you only need to make one 2-point conversion to tie. So you've got a 94% chance of getting to OT.

:) Good'n. I bet some of these Heisman hopefuls actually believe that proposition - even though it's terribly wrong.

(09-13-2013 08:01 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 06:36 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 05:01 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:58 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:08 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  If you don't get the two point conversion the time in which you are arguing is a three possession game is still a three possession game regardless of when you go for the two point conversion. Again, the dynamics still haven't changed from the four minute mark until there are zeroes on the clock.

Like the article said, down by eight is a one and a half possession game and illusion to think otherwise. It's only a one possession game if the two point conversion can be guaranteeed or at least guaranteed to the same probability as an extra point, which obviously it cannot.

OK, if you're gonna count the "extra point" (1 or 2) as a possession/score then the whole numbering system changes, but not the same basic facts.

15 points, in your approach, is a minimum FOUR possession game with two touchdowns, one 1 point conversion and one 2 point conversion. Four possessions....now, in possession one you score a touchdown and in possession two you make the 2 pointer and you need only two possessions to get your needed 7 points (touchdown and extra point kick). MISS the 2 pointer and you need THREE possessions to get your needed 9 points.

Not sure what the point of all that is, but your right the same basic facts don't change.

Tech scored a touchdown with 3:43 to go. Because the two point conversion is not guaranteed you needed nine points at that moment to tie the game and a finite amount of time to do it. I simplify here. I want to know right now if I still need nine over that final 3:43 or do I only need seven. And I'm making the decision at this moment that gives me the best chance and most amount of time to manage the game if the two point conversion fails. As much as I want to have confidence that my team is going to make the conversion I have to assume that we don't make it just in case. If we do make it's gravy. If not I know what I have to do right now not when there are only seconds on the clock remaining.

If I need eight points with 3:43 left I know that I only need a touchdown and two point conversion, but as I've already said I have to assume that two points is not a assured and now I have less time and control over the outcome. Even if I get the ball back, drain the clock and score to make it a two point game, I'm screwed if the two pointer fails. I have no time left. I still need another possession, which as I've stated all along is the same number of possessions I needed doing it the other way, but perhaps I have some time left to get it done.

I guess some people are happier with a two point loss instead of a nine point loss. I don't get that. I want to win the game. My odds are better at pulling off the miraculous comeback if I have more information earlier. As the one article states. Knowledge is power. But if it makes people feel better to lose by two instead of nine ok, but for me I don't really give a turd about that.

There is zero objective of losing by either 2 or 9 - the objective is to win and in order to do that you need to have the ball at least the minimum number of times it takes you to score the needed points. To do that with 3:43 left in the fourth the objective is to reduce the total maximum number of times you need the ball on offense in order to win. In your scenario there is a 50/50 chance (two point conversion success rate and it's actually about 47% successful) that you will need offensive possession two more times since the maximum you could score with a single possession is 8. If you kick the extra point there is an approximate 98/2 chance that you will need only one more offensive possession.

It's that simple ... 50/50 that you will need two more offensive possessions at a point when you are kicking off with 3:43 left in the game OR 98/2 that you can pull out that win with only one more offensive possession.

There is zero logical argument for going for two under the circumstances LaTech found themselves with 3:43 left in regulation.

As an MBA who has studied statistics quite a bit and worked in risk management this might be the worst example of math on a message board I've ever seen.

Don't mean to be rude, and I actually get the point you're trying to make but if you're going to use math and probabilities to try to back up a point it would be helpful if it was legitimate. Mathematically, this is simply factually flawed and inaccurate.

'k fella. Your MBA, statistics classes and former job in risk management trumps my MPA, post grad stats classes and current daily use for the past 18 years of statistical analysis - but my football knowledge and understanding of the game quite obviously beats the crap out of yours. Just ask any coach not named Holtz.

(btw, the "stats" above are not "stats" of the probability of winning the game; they're the (simple terminology) probability of scoring the correct number of points at the 3:43 mark to have to gain possession of the football the least number of times to win the game)

Just go ask someone you trust who has a football background....oh, wait, you read otherwise on the internet - your position MUST be correct.

Sorry to upset you put I'm not the one that said you would have a 98% chance to pull out the win by needing only one more possession when you acknowledge that the two point conversion has 47% odds. Fail.

can we move on? this will get beat to death if people don't let it go

(09-13-2013 08:46 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  can we move on? this will get beat to death if people don't let it go

I thought that posting a joke might help deflate the situation...

(09-13-2013 08:38 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Sorry to upset you put I'm not the one that said you would have a 98% chance to pull out the win by needing only one more possession when you acknowledge that the two point conversion has 47% odds. Fail.

Sorry, I just assumed you'd use a little deductive reasoning and give consideration that this is "written" and a sports forum - yes, the devil is in the details, but that's just too much like work.

The 50/50 (47/53 actually) is the probability of getting/not getting the 2 points. If you get the two points you have to have the ball ONE more time. If you don't, and the odds of getting those two points are against you, then you need the ball TWO more times. If you kick the point, and the odds of it being good are at 98%, then you only need the ball ONE more time. Needing to have the ball only one more time is of the upmost importance with 3:43 left in the game and the very next play is you kicking off to the other team.

Your reasoning says it's better to have a 47% chance of only having to have the ball one more time than it is to have a 98% chance of only having to have the ball one more time. Sorry but there is no model that starts with 3:43 left in the ball game where the former is the smart choice.

(09-13-2013 08:46 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  can we move on? this will get beat to death if people don't let it go

I suppose we could - but it's the topic of the string....and it's not degraded into name calling (in which case I'd then agree with you).

Individuals can either continue the discussion or not and that certainly would be one option. Then again, reading on or not reading on would be another option.

(09-13-2013 09:40 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:38 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Sorry to upset you put I'm not the one that said you would have a 98% chance to pull out the win by needing only one more possession when you acknowledge that the two point conversion has 47% odds. Fail.

Sorry, I just assumed you'd use a little deductive reasoning and give consideration that this is "written" and a sports forum - yes, the devil is in the details, but that's just too much like work.

The 50/50 (47/53 actually) is the probability of getting/not getting the 2 points. If you get the two points you have to have the ball ONE more time. If you don't, and the odds of getting those two points are against you, then you need the ball TWO more times. If you kick the point, and the odds of it being good are at 98%, then you only need the ball ONE more time. Needing to have the ball only one more time is of the upmost importance with 3:43 left in the game and the very next play is you kicking off to the other team.

Your reasoning says it's better to have a 47% chance of only having to have the ball one more time than it is to have a 98% chance of only having to have the ball one more time. Sorry but there is no model that starts with 3:43 left in the ball game where the former is the smart choice.

We shall agree to disagree on on this then. I totally understand what you're getting at (though the 47% chance to have the ball one more time is misguided...the 47% refers to odds of making two not the odds of getting another possession), but that's not even the point I'm debating.

All things being equal if you miss the two point conversion you miss it. That's the bottom line here. The two point conversion failed. So what difference does it make if it fails with 3:43 or fails later with whatever time you elect to leave on the clock (e.g. 10 seconds, 15 seconds?)? IMO, it makes a significant difference. If you miss it while down by eight you have no time left. If you miss it with 3:43 you can modify your strategy in way that gives you the best possible chance to get yourself a TD, FG and a one point win. Whether it models well is of little relevance as far as I'm concerned, but I've seen the latter play out a lot and it's never made sense to me.

I keep trying to pull myself out only to get sucked back in, but I sense the natives are getting restless so I'll try to bow out now. Thx.

(09-13-2013 10:07 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:40 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:38 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Sorry to upset you put I'm not the one that said you would have a 98% chance to pull out the win by needing only one more possession when you acknowledge that the two point conversion has 47% odds. Fail.

Sorry, I just assumed you'd use a little deductive reasoning and give consideration that this is "written" and a sports forum - yes, the devil is in the details, but that's just too much like work.

The 50/50 (47/53 actually) is the probability of getting/not getting the 2 points. If you get the two points you have to have the ball ONE more time. If you don't, and the odds of getting those two points are against you, then you need the ball TWO more times. If you kick the point, and the odds of it being good are at 98%, then you only need the ball ONE more time. Needing to have the ball only one more time is of the upmost importance with 3:43 left in the game and the very next play is you kicking off to the other team.

Your reasoning says it's better to have a 47% chance of only having to have the ball one more time than it is to have a 98% chance of only having to have the ball one more time. Sorry but there is no model that starts with 3:43 left in the ball game where the former is the smart choice.

We shall agree to disagree on on this then. I totally understand what you're getting at (though the 47% chance to have the ball one more time is misguided...the 47% refers to odds of making two not the odds of getting another possession), but that's not even the point I'm debating.

All things being equal if you miss the two point conversion you miss it. That's the bottom line here. The two point conversion failed. So what difference does it make if it fails with 3:43 or fails later with whatever time you elect to leave on the clock (e.g. 10 seconds, 15 seconds?)? IMO, it makes a significant difference. If you miss it while down by eight you have no time left. If you miss it with 3:43 you can modify your strategy in way that gives you the best possible chance to get yourself a TD, FG and a one point win. Whether it models well is of little relevance as far as I'm concerned, but I've seen the latter play out a lot and it's never made sense to me.

I keep trying to pull myself out only to get sucked back in, but I sense the natives are getting restless so I'll try to bow out now. Thx.

I didn't say anything about changing the odds of actually getting the ball back.....it's all about the number of times you need to get the ball back. Kicking the "sure" extra point means you only need to get the ball back one more time. Missing a 2 point conversion dictates you need to get the ball back two more times.