re: Going for 2 in that situation.

quote:

---

Maybe I am misunderstanding you . When you go for 2 down 8, you do NOT win 50% of the time.

---

My last post I explained that I did not say exactly this. I said you make the 1st 2pt conversion 50% of the time, and for the sake of this discussion, we are assuming in every scenario you do score 2 TDs.


And no you don't automatically win in the above scenario but you do take the lead. All of these things are understood by everyone else in this discussion it seems, fwiw. We're simplifying things here. Of course you can go up 1 and the other team can come down and kick a FG. That's not relevant to this discussion, so it's not factored in.

quote:

---

Of course it confuses any of us, cause it’s not right We’re all trying to analyze this in our head.

---

I can’t speak for everyone but most seem to understand the concept. There is an assumption that you’ve scored again. I realize shel didn’t post it but it was implied.

quote:

---

understand the math, but don’t present it as a 50% chance of winning if you go for 2 the first time

---

Honest question, can you tell me the number of times I have to explain to you I didn't at all say what you keep claiming and also explained to you exactly what I did say before you'll actually grasp it?

quote:

---

That’s how I read it, and I clearly misread what you were saying (with assumptions), but you know that’s not right.

---

This thread just isn't for you, if we're being honest. Seems virtually everyone fully understands the discussion and is operating under all the same assumptions I made re: scoring 2 TDs that you don't understand.

Most importantly, you seem to be the only one seemingly unable to grasp WHY these assumptions are being made. It's been explained to you multiple times very clearly and you're no closer to understanding than before. I'm not sure how else to help you get up to speed in this discussion.

quote:

---

Man we’re ALL - including basically every NFL and college coach - trying to wrap our head around this. It doesn’t make sense to many of us. and it probably didn’t to you initially. I’m reading… and trying to learn, don’t be mean.

---

Should probably start fresh then.

Every discussion about this is going to typically assume the defensive stop and another offensive score to illustrate why going for 2 down 8 is smart. People go there to illustrate why going for 2 on the first TD is better than going for 2 on the 2nd TD only. It helps isolate the math so people can understand the logic.

A good article that discusses this with the assumption of scoring again

However, the actual winning chances are low period.

quote:

---

I think the people arguing against it are so caught up in the moment that they don't stop and think 'maybe the people that get paid 10s of millions of dollars a year have all started doing this for a logical reason rather than just following the trend'

Like, does bill belichick seem like the type of guy (a defensive specialist) to just start going for 2s in that situation because someone tells him to? Or he saw the math and said yeah that makes sense.

Meanwhile random jackasses that never coached a game in their life will watch it happen in a playoff game and give their 2 cents haha. Yeah if it doesn't work it sucks

---

Maybe some folks here have a more nuanced view of probability than you realize.

And whether your appeal to authority works or not in the context of the actual game depends on whether Mike Evans has a much higher conversion percentage on fade routes than the typical receiver does on all other routes and than he has on other routes since the fade is by far the lowest probability common goal line throw.

quote:

---

I’m reading… and trying to learn, don’t be mean.

---

1. I wasn't being mean

2. You say you're reading but I've explained something to you directly and concisely in 3 or probably more different posts and this is now the 4th time you've responded completely ignoring what I said.

You also said you were a football coach, so it's pretty surprising that this is something you still haven't learned yet?

quote:

---

And I quoted exactly what you said… 50/25/25 (which - like I said - is not correct. As you know)

---

quote:

---

Those are your posts man. As you know, that math is not correct.

---

Again, this is why I politely said this conversation isn't for you. This is probably the 5th or 6th straight post you've repeated this. Myself, and now others, have replied to you to explain the assumptions made that make this NOT incorrect. If you didn't catch the assumptions at first, that's fine, no big deal. But why are you repeating this 6 times later when it's been explained to you 6 times the assumptions that make the math correct?


You said in this post I'm replying to that you're trying to learn. But you've shown that you're either unable or unwilling to try to learn by consistently ignoring the explanations that have been given to you over and over. Do you honestly disagree with what I just said?