|
|
#1
10-31-2005, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
So lets suppose team X is down by 14 againt team Y, there is Z( i dunno the value of Z but i do know z is a positive value) time left. Team X should go for 2, here is why.
If team X scores another TD they will regret going for one on the long run If team X scores two td here are the outcomes: If team X goes for one one the first TD they will lose 1,594% of the time.( trust me, do the math by urself)And they will force OT on the other games. If team X goes for two they will lose 36% of the time, they will win however 39,6% of the time. So why dont teams go for 2 when theyre down by 8 late on the game?? Here is the val theory( who was stolen from somebody else i dont remember) 
|
|
#2
10-31-2005, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
Sorry, I don't speak jibberish.
|
|
#3
11-01-2005, 12:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't speak gibberish. [/ QUOTE ] clearly you do [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#4
11-01-2005, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
How do you lose more than 100% of the time???
|
|
#6
11-01-2005, 12:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
[ QUOTE ]
So lets suppose team X is down by 14 againt team Y, there is Z( i dunno the value of Z but i do know z is a positive value) time left. Team X should go for 2, here is why. If team X scores another TD they will regret going for one on the long run If team X scores two td here are the outcomes: If team X goes for one one the first TD they will lose 1,594% of the time.( trust me, do the math by urself)And they will force OT on the other games. If team X goes for two they will lose 36% of the time, they will win however 39,6% of the time. So why dont teams go for 2 when theyre down by 8 late on the game?? Here is the val theory( who was stolen from somebody else i dont remember) [/ QUOTE ] WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
|
|
#8
11-01-2005, 01:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
I think the following may be what he is saying:
Assume you score two TDs, you make the 2-pt conversion 40% of the time, the PAT 100%, and the opponent doesn't score at all. Then the following are possible: (1) You make your first two-point attempt. In this case you win because you kick the PAT on your second TD and win by 1. (2) You miss your first and make your second. In this case you tie. (3) You miss your first and second. You lose. (2) is identical to kicking two PATs. (1) happens 40% of the time. (3) happens 36% of the time. So you come out ahead! The problems is that coaches get blasted for unconventional gambles that don't work, but get only a bit of credit for gambles that do. You will be fired if you miss two 2-pt attempts in a playoff game and lose by 2. Good post though. I like your idea and wish someone would try it. The breakeven percentage for this is (3-sqrt(5))/2 which is around 38.1%.
|
|
#9
11-01-2005, 07:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
I wrote about this exact same thing a long time ago on another forum. Literally millions of people already know this idea (which is even stronger than you imply because two point conversions are over 40% and one pointers are less than 100%.)
As for "The problems is that coaches get blasted for unconventional gambles that don't work, but get only a bit of credit for gambles that do. You will be fired if you miss two 2-pt attempts in a playoff game and lose by 2." I don't buy it. Not when it is so clear cut. (I've read the "losing momentum or morale" argument but for professionals that can't make up for a significant decrease in mathematical win probability.) All a coach has to do is show the simple math to the owner, preferabley BEFORE it comes up, and he is out of hot water if it backfires.
|
|
#10
11-01-2005, 08:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Down by 2 touchdowns, go for 2 theory.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy it. Not when it is so clear cut. (I've read the "losing momentum or morale" argument but for professionals that can't make up for a significant decrease in mathematical win probability.) All a coach has to do is show the simple math to the owner, preferabley BEFORE it comes up, and he is out of hot water if it backfires. [/ QUOTE ] Yea, but the problem is public opinion means just as much to the owner if not more than actual results. Let's say an owner gives his coach the go ahead to try for 2 points. If the team fails to convert, the public outcry would be for the coach to be held responsible. No one is going to say "Well, if the owner is OK with it, I am too.". If it occurred a 2nd or 3rd time, someone would be held responsible whether or not the owner gave the coach it's blessings. It's all PR and money. Just look at what happened in the USC-ND game. Had USC failed to score at the end, all the networks and football fans would want Pete Carroll's head on a platter thinking USC would have won in OT against ND. Granted, it's not the NFL, but USC would have lost a lot of money if it had to "settle" for a lesser bowl game for failing to convert the riskier play.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
