[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Two reasons:
1. 6 points only ties 2 FGs, which is a common scoring increment. As you've established, the 2pt is roughly equal to the PAT, but loses big against 2 FGs.
2. Assume that each team scores 1 TD. If the first team goes for 2, it will lose a lot more than 50% of the time. 50% of the time it misses and loses. 50% of the time it makes. Then, the other team knows to go for 2, and ties the game half the time. Obviously, the real life situations aren't so formalistic, but the longer there is remaining in the game, the more this effect costs the converting team.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you have something worth-while to say but I'm not really following. Could you rearticulate?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Points don't have linear utility. Increasing your point total by 8 is better than increasing it by 7, because you'll beat a TD+PAT rather than tying it. But increasing your point total by 7 comparatively even better than increasing it by 6, because you'll tie a TD+PAT and beat 2 FGs. Even though both differences are 1 point, the downside risk of a 2pt conv. is higher than its upside.

2. Going for 2 early in a game gives the other team informational advantages. Whenever they have to make a similar decision, they can act knowing whether or not you made your conversion. If you did not, they can play conservatively to win. If you did make it, they can gamble and sometimes tie you. The benefit is substantially decreased because the other team can adjust if you succeed.