Raise Your Hand If You Love Going for the 2 Point Conversion

I am a fan of BYU football, not a coach or paid expert on the game. Nonetheless, what is the deal with going for the 2 point conversion? Has BYU ever converted one, ever? In today's game against WVU, while we can point to many unforced errors that if avoided, would probably have made this a W instead of an L. But, one question mark is the decision to go for 2. By my count, if we had taken the extra point instead (assuming we make it), then we would have had at worst, a tie game at the end, which still gives us a chance. Again, other mistakes cost the game, I'm just skeptical about going for 2 so often. Clearly, when at the end of regulation and two points down after a TD, you go for two. Perhaps other some other scenarios it is advisable to go for two. Today, leaving 3 points in exchange for going for 2 after those TDs was painful to watch.



Perhaps it is a matter of risk tolerance. Based on today and success (or lack thereof) of prior attempts, I would go with being extremely risk averse when it comes to going for two. Reasonable minds may differ. We will never know if the Utah and WV games would have been different had we taken the 1 point instead of dos.



:skeptic: :sulk: :~( :sick:

Yes, BYU has converted a 2 point conversion. 1979 against TAMU



If BYU kicks just one of the extra points, BYU needs only a field goal to win the game.

If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

McY wrote:
If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

Prior to Arizona, when was the last time BYU made a last second field to win a game? And remember that the kicker that won Arizona game was not even there. Do you really think Almond would have made it?

Actually, did BYU go for 2 twice? My bad misstating that.

SenorCougar wrote:

If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

Prior to Arizona, when was the last time BYU made a last second field to win a game? And remember that the kicker that won Arizona game was not even there. Do you really think Almond would have made it?

hindsight is 20/20, but I'd love to see almond attempt it...

I thought the first time they went for 2 they should have kicked it. The second time was necessary ... but the play call was horrid. I had no problem with the shot at the end zone at the end of the game.

My rule of thumb is going for two at the end of the game to win is the right call if you're the road team, you have a tired or inferior defense, or you have a worse kicking game. I was in favor with going for two at the end of the Utah game.



I'm generally against going for two if your only justification is to close within 7 instead of 8--you should wait until you need to go for two to tie. I know people get tired of analysts talking about chasing the points, but today was a classic example of how playing from behind a two-score deficit completely altered BYU's strategy for a whole quarter.



On a side note, BYU needs to work on their two point plays--they are terrible. QB draw, fade pass, end-around run-pass option... Ugh.

Mingjai wrote:
My rule of thumb is going for two at the end of the game to win is the right call if you're the road team, you have a tired or inferior defense, or you have a worse kicking game. I was in favor with going for two at the end of the Utah game.



I'm generally against going for two if your only justification is to close within 7 instead of 8--you should wait until you need to go for two to tie. I know people get tired of analysts talking about chasing the points, but today was a classic example of how playing from behind a two-score deficit completely altered BYU's strategy for a whole quarter.



On a side note, BYU needs to work on their two point plays--they are terrible. QB draw, fade pass, end-around run-pass option... Ugh.

The fade pass would have worked if Taysom had put the ball in a better spot.

mtnradio wrote:
I thought the first time they went for 2 they should have kicked it. The second time was necessary ... but the play call was horrid. I had no problem with the shot at the end zone at the end of the game.

Seems like the second time was necessary only because the first failed attempt.



If BYU didn't "chase points early" (quoting the ESPN commentators), and kick the extra point on touchdowns 2 and 3, then on touchdown #4, they would have had the options to go for two and tie the game late. Going for two early puts undue pressure on the team.



I guess if they made the first attempt it could have given us momentum. But the potential pressure with a fail is greater than the potential momentum with a make, in my mind.

After the Bronco years, it's kind of nice to have coaches be over-aggressive for once. I think it's an easier transition to get someone to be less aggressive than it is to try and get someone to be more aggressive.

I didn't hate going for two, but in hindsight we shouldn't have any time we tried it this year. What I did hate is the play calls on every one of them. Love Ty, but he is 0-3 on making a good play call for a 2 point conversion.



Does anyone have the stats on the success rate of 2 point conversions in College Football and at BYU? Spiffcoug?

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

I thought the first time they went for 2 they should have kicked it. The second time was necessary ... but the play call was horrid. I had no problem with the shot at the end zone at the end of the game.

Seems like the second time was necessary only because the first failed attempt.



If BYU didn't "chase points early" (quoting the ESPN commentators), and kick the extra point on touchdowns 2 and 3, then on touchdown #4, they would have had the options to go for two and tie the game late. Going for two early puts undue pressure on the team.



I guess if they made the first attempt it could have given us momentum. But the potential pressure with a fail is greater than the potential momentum with a make, in my mind.

Agree. I think one (bad) failed attempt to go for two, lead to another. Unfortunately, neither Kilani nor Ty consulted me prior to making the decisions to go for 2. :skeptic:

frdbtr wrote:

My rule of thumb is going for two at the end of the game to win is the right call if you're the road team, you have a tired or inferior defense, or you have a worse kicking game. I was in favor with going for two at the end of the Utah game.



I'm generally against going for two if your only justification is to close within 7 instead of 8--you should wait until you need to go for two to tie. I know people get tired of analysts talking about chasing the points, but today was a classic example of how playing from behind a two-score deficit completely altered BYU's strategy for a whole quarter.



On a side note, BYU needs to work on their two point plays--they are terrible. QB draw, fade pass, end-around run-pass option... Ugh.

The fade pass would have worked if Taysom had put the ball in a better spot.

There's an ex post "would have worked if..." for every failed play. The question ex ante is what is the likelihood Taysom can put the fade pass in the correct spot. Based on Taysom's accuracy so far this year, I'd judge that likelihood of being pretty low.



I think fade passes near the goal line are often called because they are relatively low risk passes--i.e., the QB doesn't have to make much of a read or worry about saftety help over the top or linebackers underneath. There's less worry that a turnover will eliminate your chance to get a TD or FG during your next few plays.



That calculus changes slightly but significantly on a 2-point conversion. Instead of a fade being one of three chances to walk away with 6 points instead of a likely 3, it becomes one chance to walk away with 2 instead of 0. Instead of optimizing likelihood of success subject to the risk of turnover you'd see on 1st-3rd down and goal, it becomes a question a maximizing likelihood of success. A turnover on a conversion is usually simply an unsuccessful play in terms of outcome, whereas in a normal goal line play an unsuccessful play is much less damaging (if at all) than a turnover.



My point is that I don't believe that any of those play calls was success maximizing. I'm fine with them as goal line plays, but as 2-point conversion (or 4th and short) plays, I've got to believe there are better play calls available.

runbyu1 wrote:
I didn't hate going for two, but in hindsight we shouldn't have any time we tried it this year. What I did hate is the play calls on every one of them. Love Ty, but he is 0-3 on making a good play call for a 2 point conversion.



Does anyone have the stats on the success rate of 2 point conversions in College Football and at BYU? Spiffcoug?

Through 2013, it was historically about 42% while PATs were around 94.5%.



Anyway, Chris Brown, who's blog Smart Football and writing at Grantland I highly recommend, has a great writeup about why you should almost never go for 2 except as part of end game strategy.



http://smartfootball.com/game-management/why-its-almost-always-a-bad-idea-to-go-for-a-two-point-conversion-in-the-first-half#sthash.hT8qQnWR.dpbs







As an aside, while you're at that site, I'd recommend reading the article about how BYU influenced the Hal Mumme-Mike Leach-Dana Holgerson Air Raid offense: http://smartfootball.com/offense/the-air-raid-offense-history-evolution-weirdness-from-mumme-to-leach-to-franklin-to-holgorsen-and-beyond#sthash.wjSrDGnL.dpbs



And the article about implementing West Coast Offenses outside of the NFL:

http://smartfootball.com/gameplanning/can-the-west-coast-offense-work-anywhere-besides-the-nfl#sthash.TzXbCYuo.dpbs

I'm with Snow in that I like the aggressiveness. As a fan, I wanted to see us pull even, as that would be a psychological edge for the team. However, I knew it was probably a mistake to go for it, but if they made the first one, no one would be mentioning a second one. If anything, this was a good game to have this kind of lesson in a season where bowl eligibility is the best we can hope for. I believe we will get there, as I saw a lot to be happy about with the offense. I think we beat every other team but Michigan State, and even that isn't outside the realm of possibility. The Oline gave Taysom all day, and the receivers responded to the challenge to make tough catches and not drop balls. Tackling took a step back, but overall I saw the foundation of good things in years to come. It is good for our offense and defense to learn from their mistakes as well as this new coaching staff. In the future, I believe you will see Sitake, who is a pretty humble guy, follow LaVell's lead in never going for two until you have to at the end of the game (going for the win, when you think you can't win in overtime or trying to make up 16 points, or eight points without enough time for more than one or two possessions). Overall, I was pleased with the response of the Cougars time and time again.

Mingjai wrote:

I didn't hate going for two, but in hindsight we shouldn't have any time we tried it this year. What I did hate is the play calls on every one of them. Love Ty, but he is 0-3 on making a good play call for a 2 point conversion.



Does anyone have the stats on the success rate of 2 point conversions in College Football and at BYU? Spiffcoug?

Through 2013, it was historically about 42% while PATs were around 94.5%.



Anyway, Chris Brown, who's blog Smart Football and writing at Grantland I highly recommend, has a great writeup about why you should almost never go for 2 except as part of end game strategy.



http://smartfootball.com/game-management/why-its-almost-always-a-bad-idea-to-go-for-a-two-point-conversion-in-the-first-half#sthash.hT8qQnWR.dpbs







As an aside, while you're at that site, I'd recommend reading the article about how BYU influenced the Hal Mumme-Mike Leach-Dana Holgerson Air Raid offense: http://smartfootball.com/offense/the-air-raid-offense-history-evolution-weirdness-from-mumme-to-leach-to-franklin-to-holgorsen-and-beyond#sthash.wjSrDGnL.dpbs



And the article about implementing West Coast Offenses outside of the NFL:

http://smartfootball.com/gameplanning/can-the-west-coast-offense-work-anywhere-besides-the-nfl#sthash.TzXbCYuo.dpbs

Make Prediction, Ty is 0-3 but BYU is 0-9 in 2 point conversions.



Mingjai, it is historically about 38% while PATs are around 90.5%. This is why most coaches don't like going for 2 unless they are forced to in OT or to go for the tie to get to over time. If you are up big and go for it to practice it for later in a real game environment then it is OK.



The 2 BYU went for and missed would have put them down by just one with no need to go for the TD at the end as BYU was sitting at the 28 yard line at what is considered easy make range. BYU could have ran the ball to take time off the clock(some thing they could have done any way) then kicked the FG for the win. The one at Utah cost them the game they could have won in OT as the onus would have been for Utah to have to score something they weren't able to do without the refs help. Plus every time you fail to convert you take away momentum from your team.



This is why attempting 2 point conversion is not a considered a good call unless it becomes necessary to attempt it.



Had BYU went with the percentages at worst BYU would be at 2-2 at best 3-1 and possibly 4-0.

Amen.

Had BYU scored on that last drive, this wouldn't even be a thread.

TheDean wrote:

runbyu1 wrote:
I didn't hate going for two, but in hindsight we shouldn't have any time we tried it this year. What I did hate is the play calls on every one of them. Love Ty, but he is 0-3 on making a good play call for a 2 point conversion.



Does anyone have the stats on the success rate of 2 point conversions in College Football and at BYU? Spiffcoug?

Through 2013, it was historically about 42% while PATs were around 94.5%.

Make Prediction, Ty is 0-3 but BYU is 0-9 in 2 point conversions.



Mingjai, it is historically about 38% while PATs are around 90.5%. This is why most coaches don't like going for 2 unless they are forced to in OT or to go for the tie to get to over time. If you are up big and go for it to practice it for later in a real game environment then it is OK.

Just as a point of order, here are numbers calculating direct from the 2016 NCAA FBS Record book:



2000-2015

PATs: 75,138 / 78,420 = 95.8%

2-Pt: 1,648 / 4,023 = 41.0%



1958-2015

PATs: 193,318 / 208,861 = 92.6%

2-Pt: 9,944 / 23,686 = 42.0%