One glaring question I have about the game Saturday

Scenario 1: We go for two and get it, it puts us up by 6.
Scenario 2: We go for two and don’t get it then we are up 4.

Either way they have to score a TD and will have the lead if they do, but in the first scenario if they answered with a TD we only need a FG to win whereas in the second scenario the FG only ties.

Because our coach understands what he needed in that situation. I know it’s weird but get used to it.

quote:

---

Everything you guys wrote is circular

---

What?

quote:

---

You're too dumb to understand' isn't going to cut it.

---

What?


Lay out your case for going for two

quote:

---

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but not by the logic above. Everything you guys wrote is circular. I'm in the OPs camp until a solid explanation can be proffered. 'You're too dumb to understand' isn't going to cut it.

---

Simple ...I'll slow so you get it.

Kick extra point. Now they need a touchdown to win.

Make two...still a touchdown to win. NOTHING GAINED

Miss two ....now they need a field goal to tie.

If we had missed.

LSU changes their strategy to at least get into position to tie with a field goal.

Overtime or

LSU scores a touchdown and we have to get into position to score a field goal .....to tie.

Odds far greater to shut LSU down after the extra point.

The only logic in going for 2 is the 0.00993 percent chance of blocking an extra point and going to overtime.

In the NFL where the XPs aren’t freebies I imagine every coach would be going for two then

Practically everyone ITT is wrong.

Here’s the explanation (I’m only looking for the rationale why we DIDNT go for two):

We score the TD, kick the PAT to go up 24-19. LSU has to score a TD to win.

If they score, and there’s time left on the clock, they would probably go for 2, because there’s no downside if they don’t make it - they would be up by 1 if they missed vs being up by 2 if they kicked the PAT. Either way, a FG beats them. But if they make it, they’re up by 3, so a FG only ties.

In the hypothetical cases, had we gone for 2 and made it, all they would need to win is a PAT, by their kicker who is almost certainly a lock for the Lou Groza this year. Likewise, if we missed our attempt, they still win with a TD, only this time their PAT puts us back in the situation where a FG by us would only force O/T, not win it in regulation.

Throw in the assumption that our offense has a handful of “do or die” 2-point conversion plays that Harsin/Bobo would prefer to keep in reserve for when they would give us a clearcut competitive advantage (like, in a third O/T) rather than “waste” them in a virtually meaningless situation.

I completely agreed with the decision. While going for 2 “made sense” from a hypothetical perspective, it simply wasn’t worth the downsides - especially since we were on a roll of momentum, and missing a PAT sort of breaks that up a bit.

ETA: Broadside makes an excellent point that I didn’t consider. All the more reason to take the kick.

quote:

---

until a solid explanation can be proffered. 'You're too dumb to understand' isn't going to cut it.

---

Don't think that's what either of them said at all.

quote:

---

I agree with the OP as you guys act like there was still 4 or 5 minutes on the clock

---

There was over 3 minutes left and we still had all three timeouts. Meaning there was a significantly greater chance of them scoring and us still having time to get in FG position than praying that the best kicker in the country missed an XP.

quote:

---

I agree with the OP as you guys act like there was still 4 or 5 minutes on the clock. As the game was playing out, hardly enough time for them to score and us put together a drive to try and kick a field goal. Unless you're worried about them returning the kick off or scoring on a bomb on the 1st or 2nd play?

---

To me it's simply "which is more likely" and I don't really care which way we went on that judgment call

- Likelihood of making the 2pt, them scoring and missing the XP with 30 seconds left is a very unlikely sequence

- Likelihood of them scoring a TD and us getting a FG to tie is likewise very unlikely

Given it was LSU at TS, weird shite happens (in their favor) so the idea of them returning a kick for TD or something may push me toward the route Harsin took. But ultimately given the time remaining I don't think there was a clear strategic winner so I don't think anyone should really care which way the staff went.

The overarching point here, however, is that there was a bonafide reason for not going for 2, we can disagree if it was the right call or not.