Texas high school football just keeps assaulting refs...probably practiced that all week.

One of these teams made the playoffs last year. One did not. Clearly some wins count for more than others.

Points isn’t the metric. Wins is the metric. No one cares how many points you scored at the end of the season. It’s how many wins you had.

Someone did an in-depth analysis using model simulations

It could mean a win or it could mean a loss. It’s the volatility of the play, and the relatively few chances you get to try it that make things like ‘averages’ almost meaningless during the course of a single game. Even over the course of a season, the average of 40 or so attempts can easily sway 10% one way or the…

Another factor I didn’t mention is penalties. I’m not sure how the rules work, but if you are going for 2 and aren’t allowed to change your mind, then a penalty is killer. Whereas on a PAT a penalty is no big deal.

If you succeed in 51% of your conversions you will end up with more points at the the end of the season than if your kicker hits 100%. But having more points doesn’t necessarily mean winning more games. With the odds basically a toss up, some games you’ll convert all attempts, some games none. Most coaches want to…

As I said, football isn’t based on statistics like baseball is. You need to control as much as you can control so you can make better decisions. A 50/50 gamble for 2 looks a lot less appealing than 90+% chance to get 1, because you have no idea how many points your opponent is going to score, or how many attempts…

The sample size is 20 years of two point conversion attempts. My argument isn’t that its wrong to go for two. It’s that the equation isn’t very different than it’s ever been. And if 20 years of NFL teams haven’t been going for two because they thought it was a bad idea, a 2-3% drop in PAT efficiency shouldn’t change…

Ok, now you’re not going on math, you’re going on feelings. A coach feels much more confident that his kicker can hit a 33yd attempt than he does in his offense scoring on any given play. So you’re asking the coach to override his gut, and the math for the hopes of an extra point.

I did know that(after looking it up before I asked), but they won it in the spring, so it’s been more than 20 years

It’s not a massive difference to a modern field goal kicker. Look up the stats. A kicker who misses two 33 yd field goals in a game is looking for a new job the next game.

Last season the two-point conversion percentage was 47.5%, while historically it hovers around 45%

The only difference is that a typical goal line offense has a range of depths depending on whether you’re goal to go on the 8 or the 1. Two point conversation attempts always happen on the 2 yard line so receivers can be very precise about their depth and timing.

The same it’s always been. Take the sure points. Don’t go for 2 unless you have to.

This dude looks like Jim Carrey and John Gruden had a retarded baby

Yeah, except instead of getting hit by safeties and dbs, they’re getting hit by linebackers.

Why is it smart now if it has never been smart before? The two point conversion was introduced in 1994 I believe. For 20 years it wasn’t the smart move unless you absolutely needed it. The location of the ball for two point conversions hasn’t changed, so if, as Kevin claims, good offenses can succeed more than 50% of…

If you believe that good offenses convert more than 50% of two conversions then they always should’ve been going for two since their expected points per attempt is higher than 1. But they never have...why is that? The only changed variable here is the percent of PATs missed because of the new kicking distance. Looking…

Really? A division game is the same as a non-conference game? Funny, I must watch a different football than you.