Nevada trailed Ohio 30-15 before scoring a TD to make it 30-21. At that point, they go for 2 for some stupid reason and fail to get it. That means they trail by 2 scores. You wait to go for 2 if you get the score 30-28.

They get the ball back and are inside the Ohio 5 and try a trick play and fumble the ball away.

They get the ball one last time still trailing 30-21. They move the ball to the Ohio 9. Three incomplete passes sets up 4th down. Now, they have to score twice to win. It would seem on 4th down they kick the FG and then try the onside kick. Instead they go for it on 4th down and throw another incomplete pass, turning the ball over to Ohio essentially ending the game.
Some real head scratching moves by the Nevada staff.

Not written in stone ..I would say either way they would have to go for two correct?

True, personally I would wait until the last score to go for two. I couldn't believe he didn't kick the FG on 4th down and then try an onside kick...

There are several ways to utilize strategy in these situations. Nevada's coach is a D1 head coach making $3/4 Million+ to make hundreds of decisions affecting thousands of lives on and off the football field during any given season. You may disagree with some of his decisions and that's ok. However, i believe it takes a real idiot to call him an idiot!!

mountaineerman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:31 pm

Not written in stone ..I would say either way they would have to go for two correct?

Yeah that definitely doesn’t make him an idiot. Worst case, as you say, you have to go for it eventually. He was actually probably making the higher-percentage move, since going for it early lets you know how to plan in the event of either success or failure. IOW, an informational advantage, similar to going for 2 when you score a TD to get within 8.

I thought it was very poor game management, especially not kicking on 4th and goal from the 9 to cut it to 6. He may have been as stunned to actually be back in the game as everyone else.

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:42 pm

mountaineerman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:31 pm

Not written in stone ..I would say either way they would have to go for two correct?

Yeah that definitely doesn’t make him an idiot. Worst case, as you say, you have to go for it eventually. He was actually probably making the higher-percentage move, since going for it early lets you know how to plan in the event of either success or failure. IOW, an informational advantage, similar to going for 2 when you score a TD to get within 8.

No...if you go for 2 at that point and fail you are down two scores. You wait until you have to go for two. Kick the EP make 30-22. You are now one score down. If you score to make it 30-28, then you go for two.

CharleyHustle wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:25 pm

There are several ways to utilize strategy in these situations. Nevada's coach is a D1 head coach making $3/4 Million+ to make hundreds of decisions affecting thousands of lives on and off the football field during any given season. You may disagree with some of his decisions and that's ok. However, i believe it takes a real idiot to call him an idiot!!

I guess there are worse things to be called. I don't really think he's an idiot. But, those seemed like poor decisions to me. Its always been my observation that coaches go for two prematurely.

hapapp wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:20 pm

EastHallApp wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:42 pm

mountaineerman wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:31 pm

Not written in stone ..I would say either way they would have to go for two correct?

Yeah that definitely doesn’t make him an idiot. Worst case, as you say, you have to go for it eventually. He was actually probably making the higher-percentage move, since going for it early lets you know how to plan in the event of either success or failure. IOW, an informational advantage, similar to going for 2 when you score a TD to get within 8.

No...if you go for 2 at that point and fail you are down two scores. You wait until you have to go for two. Kick the EP make 30-22. You are now one score down. If you score to make it 30-28, then you go for two.

And if you fail then, you still need another score. So given that you eventually have to go for two either way, why do you think it’s so clearly advantageous to wait until the end?

Late in the 4th quarter your odds are better if you need to score once rather twice. This coach compounded their situation by then eschewing the field goal and going for the TD. From my perspective, he gambled away his team's chances for at least a tie.

I wonder if there are metrics about odds in this case. Is it more likely for a 2 pt conversion to be made early or late. At the end of the day ya gotta make a 2 point conversion sometime.

You kick the extra point to make it a one possession game. Idiot is kind of harsh, but most coaches on all levels know that to be the best option. It's like in basketball when a player throws up a three when there was still time for them to settle for an easier layup two.

Other things to consider...Nevada kicker was 93.1% on the year for extra points. He is also a freshman. I'd rather use his leg early, compared to possibly putting the pressure on him to tie it towards the end of the game.

I’m more surprised how many of our fans were watching this game. I’ve only watched six bowl games outside of the SBC bowls.

/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:56 am

You kick the extra point to make it a one possession game. Idiot is kind of harsh, but most coaches on all levels know that to be the best option. It's like in basketball when a player throws up a three when there was still time for them to settle for an easier layup two.

Other things to consider...Nevada kicker was 93.1% on the year for extra points. He is also a freshman. I'd rather use his leg early, compared to possibly putting the pressure on him to tie it towards the end of the game.

I agree, I was too harsh on the coach. That's why I changed the title of the thread.

hapapp wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 5:19 am

Late in the 4th quarter your odds are better if you need to score once rather twice.

Sure, but you’re comparing the odds of a) a known failed 2pt conversion with b) an unknown, yet-to-be-attempted conversion. Again, they had to attempt one eventually; why are they better off waiting until the end to do so?

I’m not trying to pick on you. I just think what you’re saying is kind of old conventional wisdom that isn’t necessarily right. Until recently, FB coaches were historically risk-averse in the extreme (e.g., opposition to “chasing the points”). And I think reactions like yours are part of why: If the coach waits until he has no choice but to go for 2 (or kicks a FG on 4th and 1, etc.), if his team loses then they just came up short. But if he goes for it early and they don’t make it, fans blame the coach.

As football has gotten more savvy to analytics, you see way more calls like this that seem overly risky to traditional fans but actually may give the team the best chance to win.

Going for two to cut the lead to 7 instead of kicking and cutting to 8 is not analytically sound. When you don't get it, the other team gains significant advantages. The opponent knows you have to score twice and are more likely to run ball and clock as the margin is 9. When the margin is 8, they have to be more aggressive in a one score game which can lead to turnovers, more passes which can stop clock, etc. At 8 the game is effectively longer than at 9 point margin. When you are down, more time is needed. How often do we see momentum shift and team just needed a few more minutes or a possession. If you are down 8, both teams know two scores may be needed but the guarantee is removed. Kick and play one possession football.

This data is from the NFL, but it looks like empirically it doesn’t make much difference whether you go for 1 or 2 in that situation:

“When down 9 points late-ish, there’s a case that you should go for 2, because being down 8, you would have to go for 2 to draw even eventually anyway, and it’s better to know whether you converted your attempt earlier so you can make tactical adjustments. Although this logic seems sound, the data doesn’t suggest the effect is very significant (if it exists at all).”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... -for-real/