TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards: Extra Point versus 2: We dont know the rules

This is topic Extra Point versus 2: We dont know the rules in forum UK / NCAA Football at TheCatsDomain.Com Message Boards.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.thecatsdomain.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004687

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 08:59 PM:

The rules are simple, and the logic is sound. Yet we have no clue what to do at the end of the game when we score. It's obvious to anyone that we made a mistake last week when we kicked to make it 6, rather than going for 2 to make it 7, yet the decisions at the end of tonight's game were just as bad. Here's a rundown...

When Burton caught the TD with about 3 and half minutes left, the score was 33-29. We were up 4. The difference between being up 4 and being up 5 is HUGE, but the difference between 5 and 6 is meaningless, yet we still went for 2 and got it. Had we not gotten the 2 points and had been stuck on the 4 point lead, we could have only tied with a FG had they marched down the field with a score. With a 5 point lead, you force the other team to covert their own 2 point coversion to go up by 3 if they score.

And then when we scored again with a minute to go, the score was 41-29. We were up by 12. There is ZERO difference between being up by 12 and being up by 13 at that stage in the game, so the extra point was meaningless. However, the difference between being up by 12 and being up by 14 is HUGE. What did we do? Kick a meaningless extra point.

To review:

Last week, when up by 5, we should have gone for 2. We kicked.

This week, when up by 4, we should have kicked. We went for 2.

This week, when up by 12, we should have gone for 2. We kicked.

If we keep making these mistakes, it's gonna bite us.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 09-22-2007, 09:09 PM:

With only 56 seconds left n the game after the final touchdown it would have been pointless to go for 2 points Ark. would have really had to pulled off a miracle to win down 2 sores with less than a minute to go!

Posted by ALA_KAT2 (Member # 1559) on 09-22-2007, 09:09 PM:

Good points, but we'll let Brooks (or Joker) slide since they won.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 09:10 PM:

mysite.verizon.net/red6321/twopoint.htm

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 09:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by m hamilton:
With only 56 seconds left n the game after the final touchdown it would have been pointless to go for 2 points Ark. would have really had to pulled off a miracle to win down 2 sores with less than a minute to go!

You've never seen a team score twice in the last minute?

Let's say they have about a 10% chance of running the KO back. Considering we've had two run back against us in the last two weeks, 1/10 sounds about right. And then let's say they have a 1/3 chance of getting an onside kick. That means they had a greater than 3% chance of running the KO back, getting the OS kick and having the ball with about 40 seconds left, trailing only by 6. I dont call a 1/33 shot a miracle.

[ 09-22-2007, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: TheBadLieutenant ]

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 09-22-2007, 09:20 PM:

Just like we kicked off to Ark after that last TD, we kicked it up the middle and let some up man touch the ball. At that point in the game Dick was gonna have to beat UK with his arm, It just wasn't gonna happen. NOw if that had been Brohm taking snaps behind that offensive line I'd felt a little different about the 13 point lead! Although he threw at least another interception in todays game against Syracuse!

Posted by clydeh (Member # 7) on 09-22-2007, 09:21 PM:

You didn't include the third variable which is scoring after they have recovered the onside kick.
Clyde H.

Posted by m hamilton (Member # 127) on 09-22-2007, 09:26 PM:

Defensive adjustments at half time allowed us to only give up 122 yards that second half. The defense really stepped up in that second half!!

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 09:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by clydeh:
You didn't include the third variable which is scoring after they have recovered the onside kick.
Clyde H.

I think seeing them with the ball only down 6 with 40 seconds to go would be proof enough that it was a mistake.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 09:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by m hamilton:
Just like we kicked off to Ark after that last TD, we kicked it up the middle and let some up man touch the ball. At that point in the game Dick was gonna have to beat UK with his arm, It just wasn't gonna happen. NOw if that had been Brohm taking snaps behind that offensive line I'd felt a little different about the 13 point lead! Although he threw at least another interception in todays game against Syracuse!

So it's impossible to return a KO that has been kicked down the middle?

No, it's not. 2 scores in the last 56 seconds happens, even when people kick down the middle of the field.

If you are up 17 or more with 56 seconds to go, it would take a miracle to lose. But there's many ways to lose only up by 13. There's no advantage to 13 over 12. We might as well had not even kicked it.

[ 09-22-2007, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: TheBadLieutenant ]

Posted by Cat_fan63 (Member # 2874) on 09-22-2007, 10:15 PM:

I really dont see the point in all this, we won the games, so just enjoy.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 11:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Cat_fan63:
I really dont see the point in all this, we won the games, so just enjoy.

So if a QB throws 6 INTs and the team wins, they shouldnt work on his decision-maing?

Posted by Ironrange (Member # 1244) on 09-22-2007, 11:35 PM:

I'm afraid I can't agree with the difference in 4 and 5 being huge while the difference in 5 and 6 being meaningless.
4 or 5 both prevent 1 field goal being able to beat or tie you, giving them equal status.
While 6 requires a TD AND a conversion to be beaten or 2 FG [or TD without the conversion] to be tied, but 5 is beat by either 2 FG or 1 TD, the conversion being of little importance, making 6 of much greater importance {and safety} than 5.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-22-2007, 11:59 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Ironrange:
I'm afraid I can't agree with the difference in 4 and 5 being huge while the difference in 5 and 6 being meaningless.
4 or 5 both prevent 1 field goal being able to beat or tie you, giving them equal status.
While 6 requires a TD AND a conversion to be beaten or 2 FG [or TD without the conversion] to be tied, but 5 is beat by either 2 FG or 1 TD, the conversion being of little importance, making 6 of much greater importance {and safety} than 5.

With them getting the ball with under 4 minutes to go, they would not have kicked a FG, so the only way 6 helps is if they score a TD and miss the extra point.

Posted by Ironrange (Member # 1244) on 09-23-2007, 12:15 AM:

With that much time left, and as explosive as they were I would fear them getting into FG range with fourth and long yardage with 2 minutes or more left, raising the chance of a FG and onside kick for another possession.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-23-2007, 04:01 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Ironrange:
With that much time left, and as explosive as they were I would fear them getting into FG range with fourth and long yardage with 2 minutes or more left, raising the chance of a FG and onside kick for another possession.

if you think they would have gone for a FG on that drive, then there are positives and negatives to both options and it would really be a coin toss as to which one was right. But I think they were in "7 or none" mentality. Their first two plays were a hand-off and a screen pass, which ran the clock down to 2:40. They werent gonna hurry up on that drive, because they were motivated to run the clock out if they scored a TD.

[ 09-23-2007, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: TheBadLieutenant ]

Posted by Brandon (Member # 108) on 09-23-2007, 06:23 PM:

It's hard determining what to do when you're up 5 points before a PAT with an offense like UL's.

If you go for 2 and miss, a TD beats you straight away. If you kick the pat you go up by 6 and a TD only ties you and the other team has to make their own PAT.

Logic dictates that when up by 5 you go for 2, but sometimes you have to weigh the other factors into the game.

Logic also dictates that when your down by 5 with 9 minutes to go, you have 4th and goal from the 6 yard line, you kick the field goal. UL didn't do that. Might have been a different game if they had. Their Hubris probably cost them the game.

Usually, the decision to go for 2 is when the game is within a TD or less. Going up by 12 points means that the other team has to score 2 TD's and at least 1 PAT to overtake you.

When you play the percentages you have to remember that the odds of returning the kickoff for a TD or recovering an onside kick are not cumulative for a team. A 10% chance is always a 10% chance, it doesn't go up because a return was made against a team. I would take the chances of tackling the return man every time as opposed to a return for a TD.

Brooks made the right decision in each situation.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-23-2007, 07:24 PM:

Brooks made the right decision in each situation.

I didnt see anything in your post that actually backs up that statement. I am stunned to actually see someone say it was right to kick the EP against Louisville; that one is a no-brainer. By not going for 2, we gave them a chance to beat us in regulation, something they only missed doing by 10 yards.

When you play the percentages you have to remember that the odds of returning the kickoff for a TD or recovering an onside kick are not cumulative for a team. A 10% chance is always a 10% chance, it doesn't go up because a return was made against a team. I would take the chances of tackling the return man every time as opposed to a return for a TD.

Being up by 13 or being up by 14 doesnt change anything you just said. All that changes is that if they score twice under one scenario, you go to OT. If they score twice under the other scenario, you go home. Being up 14 in the last minute of the game is MUCH better than being up 13. The difference bettwen being up 13 and being up 12, however, is next to meaningless.

[ 09-23-2007, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: TheBadLieutenant ]

Posted by LouisvilleCat (Member # 2679) on 09-23-2007, 07:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by TheBadLieutenant:
Brooks made the right decision in each situation.

I didnt see anything in your post that actually backs up that statement. I am stunned to actually see someone say it was right to kick the EP against Louisville; that one is a no-brainer. By not going for 2, we gave them a chance to beat us in regulation, something they only missed doing by 10 yards.

When you play the percentages you have to remember that the odds of returning the kickoff for a TD or recovering an onside kick are not cumulative for a team. A 10% chance is always a 10% chance, it doesn't go up because a return was made against a team. I would take the chances of tackling the return man every time as opposed to a return for a TD.

Being up by 13 or being up by 14 doesnt change anything you just said. All that changes is that if they score twice under one scenario, you go to OT. If they score twice under the other scenario, you go home. Being up 14 in the last minute of the game is MUCH better than being up 13. The difference bettwen being up 13 and being up 12, however, is next to meaningless.

None of this really matters. UofL could not move the ball on UK very effectively and I am sure Coach Brooks took that in to consideration.

Same with the calls in the Arkansas game. At the point UK tried the 2 point conversions, it was pretty much at a time that he knew (had a relatively safe assumption) that Ark. would have to show us something they hadn't been able to do all night. Beat UK in the air.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-23-2007, 08:02 PM:

None of this really matters. UofL could not move the ball on UK very effectively and I am sure Coach Brooks took that in to consideration.

You didnt see them miss a hail mary by ten yards that would have won the game for them? Brooks admits that call was a mistake. Any game theorist would say "the book" says the calls this week were wrong too, although not by such clear margins.

Posted by LouisvilleCat (Member # 2679) on 09-23-2007, 09:37 PM:

quote:
You didnt see them miss a hail mary by ten yards that would have won the game for them?

Yeah, I saw that. A last second hail mary is not moving the ball effectively. The fact that they were not effective or efficient on offense is the reason they needed to try the hail mary.

Posted by Brandon (Member # 108) on 09-24-2007, 06:42 AM:

What if UK would have went for 2 and missed. Then they still would have been up by 5. Then what would have happened if that hail mary pass had been 11 yards deeper and the UL receiver caught it for a TD. The game would have been over right there. By going up by 6 that would have forced UL to attempt the PAT and make it. Something that isn't as automatic as it was made out to be.

Going for 2 would have been the decision to make if there were like 5 minutes left in the game. UK could have figured that they would have got the ball back at least one more time in that case.

You're looking at the whole thing as being up by a certain number of points at the end and I'm looking at it as being up by a certain number of scores. Going up by 12 takes field goal out of play. They need 2 TD's and with time running out, 2 TD's is hard to come by. Sure it can be done, but I would play the percentages that it actually would happen before time expired.

But, how good if 14 points if a team scores twice and then kicks one PAT and makes one 2 point conversion of their own?

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-24-2007, 03:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by LouisvilleCat:

quote:
You didnt see them miss a hail mary by ten yards that would have won the game for them?
Yeah, I saw that. A last second hail mary is not moving the ball effectively. The fact that they were not effective or efficient on offense is the reason they needed to try the hail mary.

Whether or not they were efficient moving the ball doesnt affect whether those points would have mattered. And they would have mattered, and we would have lost.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 09-24-2007, 04:07 PM:

What if UK would have went for 2 and missed. Then they still would have been up by 5. Then what would have happened if that hail mary pass had been 11 yards deeper and the UL receiver caught it for a TD. The game would have been over right there. By going up by 6 that would have forced UL to attempt the PAT and make it. Something that isn't as automatic as it was made out to be.

So kicking the extra point is only the right move if they go ahead and miss their extra point, which is going to happen less than 5% of the time. Not getting the 7 point lead is gonna cost us the game the other 95% of the time they score. Kicking an extra point to go up by 6 in the last minute of the game is the wrong decision, something Rich Brooks himself admitted last week and something I'm stunned to see so many people here unable to understand.

You're looking at the whole thing as being up by a certain number of points at the end and I'm looking at it as being up by a certain number of scores. Going up by 12 takes field goal out of play. They need 2 TD's and with time running out, 2 TD's is hard to come by. Sure it can be done, but I would play the percentages that it actually would happen before time expired.

We were already up by 12 when we scored the TD. The extra point made it 13. We gained nothing by going from 12 to 13. It still took two TDs to beat us, and two TDs would have beaten us. However, if we had gone up by 14, two TDs would only tie us.

But, how good if 14 points if a team scores twice and then kicks one PAT and makes one 2 point conversion of their own?

They would win in that situation. But by going up 14, we would force them to have to get a 2-point conversion to beat us, rather than simply being able to beat us with an extra point. It's simple: up 13, they would have to score twice and only make the extra points to win, but up 14, they would have to make one extra point and convert one 2-pointer to win.

Posted by Brandon (Member # 108) on 09-29-2007, 12:28 PM:

...
...
...
...

They were up by 5 points.

If they go for 2 and fail they are still up by 5.

kicking the PAT puts them up by 6 and makes a TD unable to beat you.

Staying up by 5 makes the PAT irrelevant.

I agree with you in principal. However there are situational points where you make the calculated risk and go with the safe play.

...a 95% chance isn't 100%. I would have gone for 2 if it had been my decision. All I'm saying is that I see why he made the decision he did.

I'll take a 2 TD cushion anytime. Your argument about the difference between 13 and 14 points isn't lost on me, I understand your logic completely. I just see the game in terms of number of scores instead of number of points.

Posted by TheBadLieutenant (Member # 2807) on 10-04-2007, 10:42 PM:

yet another mistake in this game. Down 15 with 6 and change, you should go for 2 on the first TD to see if you are playing for 1 or two more scores. If your 2-pointer is going to fail, you would rather know that with 6 minutes to go than with 1 minute so you can see if you are playing for a tie or if it is desperation time.

Posted by DT519M (Member # 1068) on 10-05-2007, 12:12 AM:

No way u go for to there,u dont get it your down by 9,,2 drives/scores with less than 6 min. to go.kick the PAT,(which is no sure thing)down by 8 ,then give up 2 more scores in 3 minutes and the ball game is over and none of what I just typed even matters.Our offense wasnt near as ready to play as the "D"