(11-20-2018 07:03 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 05:50 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 01:46 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 12:20 PM)Rocco Wrote:  That was the 2012 season. The Tribe was 2-9 that year.

I also attended another game there at Bridgeforth where the Tribe was #1 in the country going in. That must have been 2010 (hence my comment about it being the last time we had a good team other than 2015). I obviously merged the one event into the other year.

It would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of how often underdog teams succeed at 2-point conversions at the end of regulation or in overtime (this said to the stats man). The eyeball test tells me that they fail more often than they succeed. My opinion is that in overtime it is the first team to make a mistake that loses. You don't want to make that mistake on purpose.

This is from 2015:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/2w...r_college/

"Record of teams that go for two when two points aren't required: (16-17)."

So then looking here(https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...=date_game) we have the following games:

Arkansas over Ole Miss, 2015 (went for 2, won)
Vandy over WKU, 2016 (WKU went for 2, lost)
South Alabama over Nicholls State, 2016 (NSU went for 2, lost)
Tennessee-GT 2017 (GT went for 2 and passed for some dumb reason, lost)
Charlotte over UAB, 2017 (Charlotte went for 2, won)
Arizona over Cal, 2017 (Cal went for 2, lost)
SMU over Navy, 2018 (SMU went for 2, won)
Army over Miami, 2018 (Miami went for 2, lost)
Akron over Kent State, 2018 (KSU went for 2, lost)
Western Michigan over Ball State, 2018 (BSU went for 2, lost)
Ohio State over Maryland, 2018 (MD went for 2, lost)

There was also WKU- MTSU where MTSU took the safe play but had an XP blocked.

It looks like teams that go for 2 in OT are 19- 28, about 40%. If you think your chances of hitting a 2 point conversion are better than your chances of scoring again and getting another stop, you take the 2 point conversion. If you think you're the better team you kick and keep things going. The other factor is that after 2 OTs you have to go for 2, so there's some incentive to go for 2 in the 2nd OT before you're forced to do so. Also here's the list of overtime games decided by 2 or more points since 2015:

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/pla...=date_game

I cut it off at 2015 because whenever I go to "next page" it forgets to include the overtime modifier.

I think I see two games where a G5 team prevailed in OT:
11-2 USF over 6-7 South Carolina, 2016
9-4 BYU over 6-7 Mississippi State, 2016

Neither of those would be considered upsets. It doesn't look like it benefitted the minnows much to drag the games out longer than necessary. Talent wins out over time.

Great stuff here, thanks! Since the basketball game is about to start (they are singing the national anthem as I write this), I will wait until afterwards to click on the links provided.

Again, good stuff. I highlighted above one sentence that I don't see your logic. Going for 2 in overtime doesn't really have an element of surprise unless you line up as if you are going to kick an extra point (or such as how you can pull a surprise onside kick) so I don't see the "incentive" to do it any sooner unless you are going to try a trick play.

(11-20-2018 09:14 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Again, good stuff. I highlighted above one sentence that I don't see your logic. Going for 2 in overtime doesn't really have an element of surprise unless you line up as if you are going to kick an extra point (or such as how you can pull a surprise onside kick) so I don't see the "incentive" to do it any sooner unless you are going to try a trick play.

If you do it in the first two OT a) it's possible the other team won't expect it and will burn the one timeout they get, b) you can win the game with the 2 pointer, whereas you may need the 2 pointer just to stay alive in 3 OT+, c) most teams have their 2 point play as their "best" play they feel most confident will work. Once you've burned that play you may not want to go back to it.

Again, it gets to this: do you want to win the game by winning one play, or do you want to win the game by winning multiple plays?

(11-20-2018 10:00 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(11-20-2018 09:14 PM)Zorch Wrote:  Again, good stuff. I highlighted above one sentence that I don't see your logic. Going for 2 in overtime doesn't really have an element of surprise unless you line up as if you are going to kick an extra point (or such as how you can pull a surprise onside kick) so I don't see the "incentive" to do it any sooner unless you are going to try a trick play.

If you do it in the first two OT a) it's possible the other team won't expect it and will burn the one timeout they get, b) you can win the game with the 2 pointer, whereas you may need the 2 pointer just to stay alive in 3 OT+, c) most teams have their 2 point play as their "best" play they feel most confident will work. Once you've burned that play you may not want to go back to it.

Again, it gets to this: do you want to win the game by winning one play, or do you want to win the game by winning multiple plays?

Okay, thanks, I get what you are saying. Remember, though, in the situations we are talking about, when you go for 2 and don't make it (which happens more than 50% of the time) then you lose the game. If you kick it, you are still alive and there is still the chance for either your team to play great and win or the other team to play stupidly and lose. It's the "why gamble the game any sooner than you need to" thought.

Killer Kyle lands as AD at SIU. God help those people.