3 ms·

This argument is iffy because it seems to also equally well apply to being down 8 in the first quarter yet no one would go for 2 in that scenario.

deschutes 3y ago
It's not the same. You expect that the other team will score with so many possessions remaining. And when they do, they will be able to capitalize on the information gained from your 2 point attempt. In terms of expected value, 2 point conversion attempts are roughly par with extra points, though with so few scoring events in the game you would expect large variance. So outside of scenarios where it is pure upside (1 point doesn't matter without many more scoring events) teams will opt for the lower variance outcome. This matches practice pretty well IME.
- dgfitz 3y ago
  > It's not the same. You expect that the other team will score with so many possessions remaining. If Baltimore special teams doesn't let a punt return TD happen, Houston had one FG to their name... the entire game. I don't expect a team will always score, absolutely not a team playing against one of the best defenses in football history. So, I respectfully disagree with your thesis. :)
  - wavemode 3y ago
    You may not personally expect it, sitting on the sidelines. But the people on the field do have to expect it. They can't make sound strategic decisions while operating under an assumption that the opposing team will never score a touchdown.
m3kw9 3y ago
The issue is that a coach going for 2 in the first quarter and lose because of it will look very bad and the media will always look at those and ask why you didn’t go for easy 1. Coaches aren’t gonna put their job on the line to look cute
DiggyJohnson 3y ago
Well it could very well be a slight inefficiency as a result of tradition or inertia or whatever. I also suspect that the probability of converting for 2 goes down with each subsequent attempt. You can expect teams to have a few plays installed specifically for critical 2PC attempts, and you may not want to burn those plays for marginal gain early in the game.

deschutes 3y ago

It's not the same. You expect that the other team will score with so many possessions remaining. And when they do, they will be able to capitalize on the information gained from your 2 point attempt. In terms of expected value, 2 point conversion attempts are roughly par with extra points, though with so few scoring events in the game you would expect large variance. So outside of scenarios where it is pure upside (1 point doesn't matter without many more scoring events) teams will opt for the lower variance outcome. This matches practice pretty well IME.

dgfitz 3y ago
> It's not the same. You expect that the other team will score with so many possessions remaining. If Baltimore special teams doesn't let a punt return TD happen, Houston had one FG to their name... the entire game. I don't expect a team will always score, absolutely not a team playing against one of the best defenses in football history. So, I respectfully disagree with your thesis. :)
- wavemode 3y ago
  You may not personally expect it, sitting on the sidelines. But the people on the field do have to expect it. They can't make sound strategic decisions while operating under an assumption that the opposing team will never score a touchdown.

m3kw9 3y ago

The issue is that a coach going for 2 in the first quarter and lose because of it will look very bad and the media will always look at those and ask why you didn’t go for easy 1. Coaches aren’t gonna put their job on the line to look cute

DiggyJohnson 3y ago

Well it could very well be a slight inefficiency as a result of tradition or inertia or whatever. I also suspect that the probability of converting for 2 goes down with each subsequent attempt. You can expect teams to have a few plays installed specifically for critical 2PC attempts, and you may not want to burn those plays for marginal gain early in the game.