Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="STEVEHOLT, post: 3109621, member: 522"]
[B]Why I DONT think it's a great idea to go for two to win [U][I]near[/I][/U] the end of a game.[/B]

So hear me out and tell me if I'm nuts.  The distinction here is [I][U]NEAR[/U][/I] vs basically [U][I]AT[/I][/U] The end of the game.

I am all for teams trying to win when the two point conversion will basically be the last play of the game, make or miss, especially when the team going for it is considered the inferior team.. HOWEVER..I feel that there is a BIG distinction between AT and NEAR the end.

if converting the two leaves enough time for the other team to reasonably get a shot at a game winning field goal,  the game theorist in me says it's not worth the risk to go for two if it means you can still get beat in regulation by just a FG.

The entire point of going for two is that the huge risk comes with the reward of near certain victory.  If it doesn't, then screw it, the risk reward ratio is off.

Consider this, if you go for one and just TIE it, and let's say there are 45 seconds left, MOST opposing coaches aren't going to risk too much on offense and they'll be happy to play for the OT anyway.  So essentially in BOTH situations your defense STILL needs to make a stop, yet in situation 1, you took a HUGE risk to get to that point, while in the second, you did not.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?