re: Brian Kelly and "analytics" on going for 2

Many people here forget, Kelly knows his team and he knows the history of referee interference in close games with Alabama.

He made the correct call.

Correct, in that situation you have to play for OT because the number of scores you need to go the route he chose outnumbers the possible possessions the time would allow for percentage wise. Like you mentioned about Tennessee it was just the wrong call. Just throwing out the term “analytics” will get a lot of ignorant fans off your back even when it doesn’t make any sense. It’s a great new crutch coaches can use to excuse bad decisions.

quote:

---

there is no way analytics backed up going for it from mid field when you are down

---

No and he admitted as much already the he was making decisions chasing points. He knew Tennessee was a bad matchup for this team and has said they could’ve played it straight up when they went out ahead early and still lose but would’ve been a lot closer.

quote:

---

I dont think it really backfires because people understand if you're given 1 play to beat or lose to bama from the 3 yard line you just take it and roll the dice.

---

Absolutely

Be it in regulation or overtime, one play from the two yard line to win the game without your opponent ever getting to possess the ball again is about as optimal a scenario as you can ask for. The moment LSU scored vs. FSU I thought they should have gone for two. Same thing in the game vs. Alabama. Why give your opponent the ball back and force YOURSELF to run more plays starting from the 25 when you can run one play from the 2? That will ALWAYS be my personal opinion barring something extraordinary like your QB or primary player being hurt on the play before the xtra point/2 point conversion and being unavailable for the 2 point play.

quote:

---

In the situation of being down 13 vs. 14 vs. 15, you almost always take the guaranteed be down 14. Yes, sure, chances are if you go for 2 twice you'll get it once, but there's also a whole lot of scenarios where you go for 2 twice and dont get it either time, and we were 1 2 point play away from that being a reality that game, and then at that point you GUARANTEE you lose because you'd be down 9 instead of 7 by taking the 2 XP late in the 4th.

I understand the analytics behind it, but int that situation it doesnt seem like a good idea in the 4th quarter because there's so much room for failure and forcing yourself out the game even if you do make a great comeback.

---

Agreed. Going for 2 there doesn't end the game (potentially in your favor) like going for 2 in OT. If you convert you are still down 13 and have to get two TDs. Sure, the reward if you convert is that on the last TD you need the xtra point wins you the game. But if you fail, you are now having to chase that point to even have a chance to tie the game.

If that two points is the difference between being down 8 vs 9. Absolutely. Same for being down 10 v 11, or 3 vs 4. But it is not really that big of a advantage to be down 13 instead of 14

quote:

---

The idea is to go for two and make it 13 that way even if you give up a field goal it is still a 2 possession game.

---

STOOPID DECISION. That is not a good enough reason.

I didn't like the call. Maybe with more time left but there wasn't enough time to account for all the events that justified the two-point conversion.

I don’t think that was the right decision, you still need 2 more TD’s, that would have been an option if the 2 points gives you a deficit of 3 or to be able to get to within 7 or 8 . They would have still been behind by 13 if they converted the 2 point conversion, made no sense.

quote:

---

The decision Kelly made was we were not playing for a tie and overtime. You can agree or disagree with this decision, but once made, the analytics would tell you to go for two. The reason why is that you want to know were you stand (i.e. how many scores you need) asap as this effects how you play the rest of the game. Overall this increases your odds of winning somewhat.

---

This is the best explanation I've seen of it. The idea that it is all "analytics" is misguided in my mind.

I thought the decision and failure to convert psychologically killed our chances ultimately, though. My "gut" choice would have been to just keep rolling along as if it was a normal touchdown + XP at that juncture.

I think he was trying to pump up the team. Especially the D. Or they were doing the math wrong in their head or it was a vegas call. But from an arithmetic standpoint it was stupid. He couldnt even give a good answer in the presser.