You are simply wrong
No with my logic USC would have played it safe in a tie game with 43 seconds.
Getting the 2 would have forced them to be aggressive .
Never go for 2 there unless it gives you a 100% chance of winning which it would not have in this case
Can’t argue with math it was a bad call.
Utah had a 50% chance at best of converting but 2.
They ended up on the wrong end of the 50%.
Then even if they do convert the 2 USC still has I would say at least a 40% chance at still winning the game in regulation.
Thats a lot of odds Utah had to buck making that move.
You only do what they did if the odds of winning are 100% if you convert
Utah had a 50% chance at best of converting but 2.
They ended up on the wrong end of the 50%.
Then even if they do convert the 2 USC still has I would say at least a 40% chance at still winning the game in regulation.
Thats a lot of odds Utah had to buck making that move.
You only do what they did if the odds of winning are 100% if you convert
If Utah changed their mind after USC called their TO & decided to kick the XP, USC probably plays for OT because they know that Utah can't stop them. So once again you are wrong in saying Utah made the wrong call. They had a much better chance of winning on that 2 point conversion compared to going to OT. If you can't grasp that based on what was actually happening in the game, I do not know what to tell you.
Well this is s fun debate. I would not go for 2 unless it meant I win right then. The extra point is what would have done. I did not have bet on the game. Now how anyone can assume usc was a lock to win in OT is crazy. Anything could happen. I’ll say it again. I would go for two on the road if it was last play only. Chop is correct.
Coaches tend to have a better pulse of their team compared to someone seeing it on TV. Even the blind could see it would take a turnover for Utah to win in OT as their defense was beyond gassed. Hands on hips, being pushed around at will. Now you would ask them to potentially try to continuously stop the Trojans on a short field, yeah good luck with that.
To me it looks like the coach didnt think his kids were good enough to be in the game. You see that alot with huge underdogs or just a bad team catching lighting in a bottle. I dont know much about Utah football but it was played like a coach was just happy and suprised to be there at the end. Maybe that was the case, so I have no problem with the call.
Just odd call in my book tho for a 4-1 team to play it like that. Maybe they thought USC was their super bowl
Just odd call in my book tho for a 4-1 team to play it like that. Maybe they thought USC was their super bowl
I wonder if the "right" call would have been Utah going for 2, knowing that USC would use their last timeout. Then after the timeout, have Utah kick the xp and have the game tied w/ USC having no timeouts left to increase the chances for the game to go to overtime?
Just a little monday morning qb.
BTW, i watched the game live and had no problem what Utah did. Plus i had Utah and the pts so i really didnt give 2 shits haha
Just a little monday morning qb.
BTW, i watched the game live and had no problem what Utah did. Plus i had Utah and the pts so i really didnt give 2 shits haha
Math:
Inputs:
Utah has 50% chance of making conversion
USC has 30% chance of driving down field with under a minute, no timeouts, and scoring TD or FG to win in regulation
Utah chance of winning is 35% in regulation by going for 2 and making it.
If Utah coach believes that he has better than 35% chance winning it in OT, then he should kick XP, based on those percentages.
Basically, everyone is right here. The percentages above will change based on how you see the game unfolding. Most that argue that you should have kicked XP probably feel that, as a coach, you should have more confidence in being able to hang in with an opponent in OT. Those who argued with going for 2 saw no chance of Utah winning in OT.
The math doesn't lie, but the inputs to get to the final math are significantly up for debate.
Inputs:
Utah has 50% chance of making conversion
USC has 30% chance of driving down field with under a minute, no timeouts, and scoring TD or FG to win in regulation
Utah chance of winning is 35% in regulation by going for 2 and making it.
If Utah coach believes that he has better than 35% chance winning it in OT, then he should kick XP, based on those percentages.
Basically, everyone is right here. The percentages above will change based on how you see the game unfolding. Most that argue that you should have kicked XP probably feel that, as a coach, you should have more confidence in being able to hang in with an opponent in OT. Those who argued with going for 2 saw no chance of Utah winning in OT.
The math doesn't lie, but the inputs to get to the final math are significantly up for debate.
Last edited:
Seems like you're missing a piece. The fact that an xp doesn't guarantee overtime. Coach needs to believe he has better than 35% chance of dodging a USC score and THEN winning in OT.
Given you have USC's chance to score again in regulation around 30%, I don't think the odds are there to kick the xp.
USC scored 28 points, which means your defense can and has shut USC down.
Furthermore, you should have scored 28 points, just as much as USC. Thinking you can't win if you don't for two isn't very bright. Furthermore, if you really can't stop them, than 48 seconds is plenty of time for them to beat you.
Maybe he would have kicked an onside kick too ��
There's a reason teams go for the tie 99.99% of the time in that situation, Utah is now part of a case study on the subject
Furthermore, you should have scored 28 points, just as much as USC. Thinking you can't win if you don't for two isn't very bright. Furthermore, if you really can't stop them, than 48 seconds is plenty of time for them to beat you.
Maybe he would have kicked an onside kick too ��
There's a reason teams go for the tie 99.99% of the time in that situation, Utah is now part of a case study on the subject
This is true. I didn't factor in a few things:
1. Utah making the XP - these college kickers miss a lot of these, but I assumed 100% that he would make. He probably makes it 95%, but that extra 5% is something to consider.
2. If USC had no timeouts, I would have to think that they would just take knee and settle for OT as opposed to running hurry up offense. But, there is also a chance that they do hurry up and go down and kick FG. I don't think it's 30%, but more like 10%
So, these two above make it more enticing to go for 2. Again, I wouldn't criticize either decision - different percentages in the math equation change the decisions, but based on what everyone is saying and how the flow of the game was going, I would probably go for 2 as well.
HW
You have a thread without a video of the failed 2 point conversion.....2:57 ##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)##)
