T1B

Onsides kicks would certainly work if teams tried them more. So many of the receiving team guys on the restraining line just go thru the motion and turn back to set up before the ball is kicked. Now if they new it was coming that would be different.

I don't know about going for it on 4th and 7, but I do think more teams should go for two. Most teams average more than 3 yards per play so they would be successful more than not.

ESPN ran an article last year about a couple of college programs that go for it on fourth down every time, and not just when they're on the opponents' side of the 50. I want to say that the Maine Black Bears were one of them.

Supposedly the math is conclusive that it makes no sense to punt.

Two places I can't ever see going for it on 4th and more that say 5 is inside your own 20 or inside their 20.

Yeah, I don't recall whether they literally go for it every time regardless of distance and location. I suspect that if it's fourth-and-twenty from their own eleven they don't still go for it, but they definitely don't limit it only to their opponents' side of the field either.

Left Seater wrote:Two places I can't ever see going for it on 4th and more that say 5 is inside your own 20 or inside their 20.

Only time you would go for in those areas are if you're down late in the 4th and need more than a FG.

Dan Hawkins used to talk like this and last year he did games with Pam Ward. not sure avg yard per play adds up to the justifications for the 2 point try every time.

King Crimson wrote:not sure avg yard per play adds up to the justifications for the 2 point try every time.

Point taken. So if we take the conversion rate of PATs, which is just slightly better than 92%, teams would only need to be successful on 46% of two point conversion attempts to score more points than they do attempting PATs. If you removed botched PAT attempts from the 2 point conversion rate I would guess that number is higher than 46%.

Problem is I can't find a definitive 2point conversion rate. I did send an email to the RICE SID and Video Coordinator. They will know our number which we can then use here for discussion.

Left Seater wrote:

King Crimson wrote:not sure avg yard per play adds up to the justifications for the 2 point try every time.

Point taken. So if we take the conversion rate of PATs, which is just slightly better than 92%, teams would only need to be successful on 46% of two point conversion attempts to score more points than they do attempting PATs. If you removed botched PAT attempts from the 2 point conversion rate I would guess that number is higher than 46%.

Problem is I can't find a definitive 2point conversion rate. I did send an email to the RICE SID and Video Coordinator. They will know our number which we can then use here for discussion.

that would be interesting to see. however, i'm not sure that would give us the "situational" metric we'd need. because if you go every time you are talking a stat that is more like 3rd and 3 (with a 13 yard field/endzone and no play action threat you might have with an open field....LB's are going to crowd the LOS on a conversion more than 3rd and 3 at the 50)....and not Boise statue of liberty type stuff or the delay route to the TE you haven't run all season to win a big game the OC has been saving in his pocket.

this is uncharted stat territory to me, all i'm saying. because the situations would be totally different.

i just think the stat "We are going for two because we need two" (generally the case)....versus, "we need 3 yards to get 2 points at better than 46% to make it worth it when the other team has the idea we are going to do it"...are qualitatively different.

Oregon almost always goes for 2 -- and I can't remember the numbers they threw out last year. It works for them statistically, but they have a little better offense than most.

Interesting to see SDSU try going for everything... with their new starting QB Ryan Katz, who 4 years deep, lost his job at Oregon State to a newbie... good luck with that.

Maybe no play action in the tradition I formation, but you still have it with the zone read type play from the gun.

If you have a mobile QB I think you go for it more often.

King Crimson wrote:this is uncharted stat territory to me, all i'm saying. because the situations would be totally different.

i just think the stat "We are going for two because we need two" (generally the case)....versus, "we need 3 yards to get 2 points at better than 46% to make it worth it when the other team has the idea we are going to do it"...are qualitatively different.

I'd say 46% is a bit low. I know teams don't always convert extra points at a 100% rate, but I think you'd need to get to at least 48-49% success rate on two-point conversions if you're going to go for it every time, to offset the near certain one point.

Otherwise, I'd agree. Most teams go for two only when they need two, or in the third or later OT, when the rules say they must go for two. Of course, that may lower their success rate slightly.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
I'd say 46% is a bit low. I know teams don't always convert extra points at a 100% rate, but I think you'd need to get to at least 48-49% success rate on two-point conversions if you're going to go for it every time, to offset the near certain one.

I am not a stats guy, but I can do math and 46% is the break even point. If the conversion rate for D1 PATs is 92%, or in other words 92 points of a possible 100 were scored. If you convert 46% of your two point tries at the D1 level then you are also at 92 points of a possible 200.