 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Football Game & Site Questions » Two point conversion strategies
Admin
Question 1:
There is less than 90 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter and after a touchdown you are down by 1. A kick nearly assures you of the tie, the 2 point will give you a win or a loss. You, being an aggressive coach, decide to go for 2. Do you feel like going for 2 in this case is:
a) Nuts?
b) Extremely aggressive?
c) Moderately aggressive?
Question 2:
You score a touchdown with 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter; the touchdown leaves you up by 1. If you kick an extra point, your opponent can take the lead with a field goal but successfully going for 2 means that a field goal will only tie. You, being a conservative coach, go for the sure thing and kick the extra point. Is this:
a) Nuts?
b) Extremely conservative?
c) Moderately conservative?
Question 3:
Do you feel like owners should be able to set 2-point conversions to "Always" or "Never", or should the minimum and maximum be at reasonable levels so the play is more realistic?
Thank you for sharing your opinion on this subject!
--Chris
Two point conversion strategies
March 22, 2011 at 01:11AM View BBCode
I am working on two point conversions, but I posed a couple of questions in Beta that I think I should also ask here.Question 1:
There is less than 90 seconds left on the clock in the 4th quarter and after a touchdown you are down by 1. A kick nearly assures you of the tie, the 2 point will give you a win or a loss. You, being an aggressive coach, decide to go for 2. Do you feel like going for 2 in this case is:
a) Nuts?
b) Extremely aggressive?
c) Moderately aggressive?
Question 2:
You score a touchdown with 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter; the touchdown leaves you up by 1. If you kick an extra point, your opponent can take the lead with a field goal but successfully going for 2 means that a field goal will only tie. You, being a conservative coach, go for the sure thing and kick the extra point. Is this:
a) Nuts?
b) Extremely conservative?
c) Moderately conservative?
Question 3:
Do you feel like owners should be able to set 2-point conversions to "Always" or "Never", or should the minimum and maximum be at reasonable levels so the play is more realistic?
Thank you for sharing your opinion on this subject!
--Chris
Hamilton2
Q2: nuts - there is no value in being up by 2 instead of 1, 1 point lead gives you the win and 3 point win helps in case of the other team kicking a FG, this one should almost always be a "go for two" scenario
Q3: Setting this to "Always" or "never" is just asking for abuse, please set internal min/max levels that make it more realistic. Please?
March 22, 2011 at 01:46AM View BBCode
Q1: extremely aggressive - going for the tie is what 90% of NFL coaches will do, but I think that it is actually a better strategy statistically to go for the win (just ask Bill Belichick)Q2: nuts - there is no value in being up by 2 instead of 1, 1 point lead gives you the win and 3 point win helps in case of the other team kicking a FG, this one should almost always be a "go for two" scenario
Q3: Setting this to "Always" or "never" is just asking for abuse, please set internal min/max levels that make it more realistic. Please?
Williams_482
this is entirely dependent on the teams, I feel. If your team has a significantly better defense, and/or you have a <50% chance of converting, then kick. otherwise, go for it. If I have to give an answer, I would say B.
2:
Go for two, there. Like Hamilton said, there is no benefit to being up by 2 vs 1, but a huge benefit to being up 3. A
3:
I feel that if someone wants to do that, they should be able to. also, it means that any 2-point conversion bugs will be found more quickly. If the game is realistic, there should be some significant problems with always going for two (you are unlikely to score as many points, unless your offense is insane, in which case it probably will not matter)
[EDIT: misread number two]
[Edited on 3-22-2011 by Williams_482]
March 22, 2011 at 01:55AM View BBCode
1:this is entirely dependent on the teams, I feel. If your team has a significantly better defense, and/or you have a <50% chance of converting, then kick. otherwise, go for it. If I have to give an answer, I would say B.
2:
Go for two, there. Like Hamilton said, there is no benefit to being up by 2 vs 1, but a huge benefit to being up 3. A
3:
I feel that if someone wants to do that, they should be able to. also, it means that any 2-point conversion bugs will be found more quickly. If the game is realistic, there should be some significant problems with always going for two (you are unlikely to score as many points, unless your offense is insane, in which case it probably will not matter)
[EDIT: misread number two]
[Edited on 3-22-2011 by Williams_482]
Closer
B -Gotta go for 2 there's no downside.
No to extremes. A little more control is called for.
March 22, 2011 at 02:19AM View BBCode
C -Depends on your team makeup, but its not a overly aggresive move.B -Gotta go for 2 there's no downside.
No to extremes. A little more control is called for.
phen0m
Q2. Id probably say somewhere between nuts and extremely conservative, there are some situations where being up only 1 instead of 2 could burn you, but the reward of being of 3 instead of 2 far outweighs the risk.
Q3. I dont think you should be able to always go for 2 or never go for 2, but i think you should be able to be far more aggressive than NFL coaches.
March 22, 2011 at 03:09AM View BBCode
Q1. I think it would depend mostly on how much faith i had in my defense in stopping the other team. If our defense was consistently stopping them i think it would be nuts to go for 2. If the other team was just moving the ball on us at will, i think it would be nuts NOT to go for 2. So i guess if i had to choose one i would say moderately aggressive.Q2. Id probably say somewhere between nuts and extremely conservative, there are some situations where being up only 1 instead of 2 could burn you, but the reward of being of 3 instead of 2 far outweighs the risk.
Q3. I dont think you should be able to always go for 2 or never go for 2, but i think you should be able to be far more aggressive than NFL coaches.
redcped
A
Reasonable levels
Chris, I'm pretty sure there are charts that tell you when it is advantageous to go for 2 and when it is not. We can look them up.
March 22, 2011 at 03:43AM View BBCode
BA
Reasonable levels
Chris, I'm pretty sure there are charts that tell you when it is advantageous to go for 2 and when it is not. We can look them up.
dirtdevil
Q2: nuts. there is no reason whatsoever to kick the convert there.
Q3: always and never should not be options.
March 22, 2011 at 03:46AM View BBCode
Q1: extremely aggressive, borderline nuts. there's really not much percentage in going for two there, i don't think. even a successful two still leaves roughly 1:20 for the other team to drive for a FG and the extra point doesn't make a FG any less of a killer. 2's are much less successfully converted than 1's. to me the risk of missing on the 2 greatly outweighs the benefit of being up by 1. kick the extra point and play for the win in OT.Q2: nuts. there is no reason whatsoever to kick the convert there.
Q3: always and never should not be options.
Admin
There are, but the one I am using goes all the way from 0 to 100%, so I'm trying to get a feel for where my "borders" are. The two samples I gave are, not surprisingly, close to where I feel the border conditons are for minimum and maximum settings (percentage wise).
--Chris
March 22, 2011 at 04:56AM View BBCode
Originally posted by redcped
B
A
Reasonable levels
Chris, I'm pretty sure there are charts that tell you when it is advantageous to go for 2 and when it is not. We can look them up.
There are, but the one I am using goes all the way from 0 to 100%, so I'm trying to get a feel for where my "borders" are. The two samples I gave are, not surprisingly, close to where I feel the border conditons are for minimum and maximum settings (percentage wise).
--Chris
phen0m
Also thought about that... i think the question just isnt clear enough... "less than 90 seconds" could mean 89 seconds or 1 second. Obviously with 89 seconds left theres no way i would go for 2. But with 1 second alot of times i would. The question should be "less than 30 seconds" probably.
March 22, 2011 at 05:30AM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
Q1: extremely aggressive, borderline nuts. there's really not much percentage in going for two there, i don't think. even a successful two still leaves roughly 1:20 for the other team to drive for a FG and the extra point doesn't make a FG any less of a killer. 2's are much less successfully converted than 1's. to me the risk of missing on the 2 greatly outweighs the benefit of being up by 1. kick the extra point and play for the win in OT.
Also thought about that... i think the question just isnt clear enough... "less than 90 seconds" could mean 89 seconds or 1 second. Obviously with 89 seconds left theres no way i would go for 2. But with 1 second alot of times i would. The question should be "less than 30 seconds" probably.
Fulla
Two point conversions should be an option anytime in the 4th quarter. If I am down by 8 pts, 11 pts or 15 pts with 8 minutes left, I would choose the two point conversion every time.
March 22, 2011 at 06:27AM View BBCode
I like question 2.Two point conversions should be an option anytime in the 4th quarter. If I am down by 8 pts, 11 pts or 15 pts with 8 minutes left, I would choose the two point conversion every time.
Admin
The code I am using is based on a data table that is coded in 90-second increments from beginning to end, and with rounding that means the final 135 seconds of the game will be using the same setting.
--Chris
March 22, 2011 at 08:31AM View BBCode
Originally posted by phen0m
Also thought about that... i think the question just isnt clear enough... "less than 90 seconds" could mean 89 seconds or 1 second. Obviously with 89 seconds left theres no way i would go for 2. But with 1 second alot of times i would. The question should be "less than 30 seconds" probably.
The code I am using is based on a data table that is coded in 90-second increments from beginning to end, and with rounding that means the final 135 seconds of the game will be using the same setting.
--Chris
Pages: 1