Why is Tulsa kicking the extra point?

GD... let's hope you were just tired when you typed this up... cuz you are about to get ripped pretty severely by Van on this one...

the fact that Tulsa was likely to score 1 more FG actually is an argument in favor of going for 2 pts instead of 1...

1) if Tulsa gets the 2 pointer, plus a FG, they are up by 24... that's 3 TDs plus 3 2 pt conversion...

2) if Tulsa doesn't get the 2 pointer, but gets a FG, they are up by 22... still requires 3 TDs plus a 2 pointer (which Hawaii would save for their last TD, making it do or die)...

3) there is virtually no difference between 22 and 23... both scenarios require 3 TDs, and at least 1 2-pointer, but not more than 2 2-pointers... so your two scenarios above create a very weak argument... given the likelihood (as you suggest) that Tulsa would get 1 more FG...

4) without an extra Tulsa FG, we are back to the (a) 19 or (b) 20 scenario, where your argument above actually DOES come into play... now Hawaii needs to convert either (a) 3 TDs plus at least 2 XPs, or (b) 2 TDs + 2 2-pt conversions... (that is where it becomes a problem)... not to mention tacking on another FG (i.e. a 3rd score)...

bottom line... the answer to Vanzack's original question is... "the chart!"... the chart tells coaches to go for 1 pt in that situation... but the chart, as i pointed out, is idiotic!  coaches that are bound to the chart have issues with their ability to discern game situations...

this is a risk-reward issue... the risk of only being up by 19 instead of 21 (where Hawaii still needs 3 possessions, and needs to convert 2 out of 2 2-pt conversions), is out-weighed by the reward of converting the 2-pointer and forcing Hawaii to have to score 3 TDs with 3 extra points to tie the game...

i will say it isn't a black-and-white obvious situation... but i think the chart is the reason the coach did it, and that is a really bad reason...

This.

Except that the chart says to go for 2, loud and clear.  Even the chart is in agreement to go for 2.

The only reason not go to for 2 there is if you think the Hawaii kicker can't make 3 extra points to beat you.  The Hawaii kicker was 5/5 at that point, so I think it was a bad move, but in reality it is only going to cost him the game maybe 1 out of 300.

Maybe he kicked the extra point out of respect for the Hawaii fans.

Van,  new to posting but would like to add to this a couple of things,  the 24 percent chance, does that come from 100 times of situation  and 24 times team came back , or from equation. I truly believe we have an inadequate sample here, but from my listening to many coaching press conferences, this decision is based a little on if the team going up 19 will score any more points in the game or be shutout the rest of the way,  so in a very high scoring game there is a greater chance up 19 will score more later if neccesary but in a lower scoring game there is a less chance of a up 19 scoring again, so I would say a good coach would most often go for 2 say they were up 19, score 26 to 7 , then up 54 to 35,  because they believe if they had to score one more time it could happen literally happen in seconds, especially in college where timeouts dont matter as much because of clock stoppage on 1st downs and your kicker is already 2 for 2 with a 42 yarder in the 1st quarter with no weather factors to deal with.  Also college extra points are not anywhere near to automatic like pros are even though Scott Enos being 66 for 66 in 2010 and 34 for 34 in 2009, 100 for 100, wow. Coaching or managing is as much an instinctive as it is straight x and o , like when to pull a pitcher or leave him in, 100 pitches matters but not all the time, righty lefty maybe depends what rest of bullpen has left, maybe no more lefties left, use intuition, my latest learning experience was when Jeff Fisher did not go for 4th down against the Colts recently, he took a ton of heat, but in his press conference he made a great point that he thought the team with the ball last would win, so is it easier to stop Indy with the ball up 6 just trying to get 1st down or easier to stop Indy if Tenn went up 1 and they were trying to score to win game. GREAT point by Fisher,when tenn punted there were over 4 minutes left and Indy 3 some timeouts, so Tenn could not score, last second to win especially needing TD and not field goal because getting in end zone is not like positioning for last second filed goal, you get in if you can get in period.  I have learned a lot from reading your posts, Thank you for your time always, Sincerely, ICEMAN20

ApocalypseLater,

As I have stated, assuming Tulsa get another FG, Hawaii MUST converse the first 2 2-points conversion after they score the first two TDs. If they miss one then they will down by (9) which one more TD will not help them. With 22 points, they can afford to miss one of the first 2 2-points conversion and still down by only (8) points.

Anyway, I have said it is the right call for me at least.

If you really think the other team can score three TD on you and you get nothing with 7 minutes left (even one FG with several short field opportunity) then you deserve to lose regardless of getting 1 or two points because you will lose in OT as well.

yea, honestly, i have never seen the chart... so i was just assuming it would say something stupid like go for 1...

GD... this is wrong, flat out... other aspects are debatable, but this is not...


let's break it down... if a team is down by 22 points, they score a TD... they kick the XP... now they are down by 15 points... they score a TD... they kick the XP... now they are down by 8 points... they score a TD... NOW they go for 2 points...

this is protocol, pure and simple, in college and the pros... we've seen it 1000 times, and any time the team goes for 2 too early, the commentators (rightly so) rip the shit out of the coach, and explain why (what i just explained above)...

at 22 points... you don't go for 2 until the last TD... pure and simple!  if you do it before then, you screwed up!

ApocalypseLater, you have already shown how a team can come back from 22 pts deficit.

Break down how a team can come back from 23 pts deficit.

The key here is being down by 23 points, a team will need to converse 2 2-points conversion instead of one.

yes, that is true... but that's not how you broke it down in your original post...

with 23 points... you score a TD, kick the XP... score a TD, go for 2... score a TD, go for 2... you have to convert both 2-pointers...

however, that is not a solid argument to go for 1 instead of 2 in this situation... at best, you are making a case that it's a trade-off... we make a 2-pointer and force you to make one more 2-pointer... and that is predicated on Tulsa scoring another FG...

but again, i was disputing how you broke it down in your first post, and your suggestion that, down by 22, you go for 2 after the first TD, which you don't...