I detest one play do or die decisions.

12penguins

Active member
In the situation in question the team had just gone 71 yards in 17 plays, converting several 4th and 7 or more plays and scored with .01 left. The kicker is a freshmen and had several kicks blocked in the past couple weeks. Momentum was definitely in Mcnicks favor. As I said before my assumption was that they would go for the win. It was the right call in this instance. In some circumstances and in some games with a different team maybe you play for O
Still disagree, but that is what makes the world go around.
Did you happen to see the Massie-Ursuline game today? I assume you didn’t like going for two. I respect that but given the way the game was played in the last quarter and a half it was pretty clear it was a correct call. It all depends on the flow and emotion of the game.
I did not see it. If they scored on the last play of the game went for two, then I do not like it then or ever. If it was not the last play of the game, options widen to some degree.
 

Quest4Gold

Well-known member
This is a great question, but I don't see it as a 50-50 type thing. I think the PAT percentages are really variable in high school. Some high school kickers could be so inconsistent it would be a higher percentage to go for two. I would feel more comfortable to go for two with my football players than a soccer player who may or may not be able to handle the pressure. I believe the the higher the competition (college/pros) the more percentages lower to go for two in these cases.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
The longer a game goes on, the better the chance it could be decided by some fluke or a bad call, Yes, it goes both ways, but I'd rather see a coach eliminate the fluke factor by putting the game in the hands of his players.
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
Probably should clarify that I am neither a Massie nor a Mcnick fan. I will also add the decision always seems like a testosterone one to me. I prefer intellectual decisions. Ok, ready....go!
For an intellectual decision, you should know that statically, going for 2 has better odds than 50%. So you would have a better chance of winning than OT.
 

Irwin20

Well-known member
Still disagree, but that is what makes the world go around.

I did not see it. If they scored on the last play of the game went for two, then I do not like it then or ever. If it was not the last play of the game, options widen to some degree.
I appreciate your consistency. 👌
 

joesports

Well-known member
There are 3 things that I would consider when making the decision
A) how much I trust my Kicker (PAT team)
B) how confident I am of our 2 point conversion play success
C) what is my level of confidence in overtime

The answer to each of these question will help decide if going for 2 or kicking … each situation is different

I coached for nearly 40 years and the one call I regret most … is not going for two at the end of my first playoff game ever … we missed the kick and lost.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
For an intellectual decision, you should know that statically, going for 2 has better odds than 50%. So you would have a better chance of winning than OT.
This argument presumes that the chance of winning in OT for CM would have been less than, or at the most, 50%. (Or at least less than the odds of going for 2). I disagree with this. All the momentum was with CM at the end of the game. In OT, Ursuline would have had a tough time scoring and a tough time stopping CM. I'm no statistician, but I'd guess the odds of CM winning in OT would have been much greater than 50%. I have no issue with a coach rolling the dice on a 2-point conversion, but IMO the odds were less than had they gone to overtime. In certain circumstances, I absolutely agree going for 2 is the best move. For example, in the Auburn-Alabama game, when Auburn scored in the first OT I absolutely would have gone for 2 because they weren't stopping Alabama and their offense (especially the banged up QB!) was sputtering. I think the odds were strongly in favor of going for 2 and winning or losing the game there. In this CM-Ursuline game, going for 2 certainly worked out, and you tip your hat to the coach for having the nerve to make the call. But IMO, the odds to win would have been greater in OT than it was in going for the 2-point conversion. Still, it was a gutsy call.
 
Last edited:

my2sense

Well-known member
Also - Have you lost any impact players during the game? The longer you play without them, it will get exposed.

And have the kids who will be handling the ball "been there before". I am not a fan of trick/gadget plays for a game winner. Give the ball to your best back and run him behind your best lineman.
 

buno67

Active member
you go for the win cause you are in control. You play for OT and who knows what happens but by doing that you have given the opposing team control back. One happens if you score first in OT and the other team gets the ball and they decide to go for 2 instead of playing for another OT
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
This argument presumes that the chance of winning in OT for CM would have been less than, or at the most, 50%. (Or at least less than the odds of going for 2). I disagree with this. All the momentum was with CM at the end of the game. In OT, Ursuline would have had a tough time scoring and a tough time stopping CM. I'm no statistician, but I'd guess the odds of CM winning in OT would have been much greater than 50%. I have no issue with a coach rolling the dice on a 2-point conversion, but IMO the odds were less than had they gone to overtime. In certain circumstances, I absolutely agree going for 2 is the best move. For example, in the Auburn-Alabama game, when Auburn scored in the first OT I absolutely would have gone for 2 because they weren't stopping Alabama and their offense (especially the banged up QB!) was sputtering. I think the odds were strongly in favor of going for 2 and winning or losing the game there. In this CM-Ursuline game, going for 2 certainly worked out, and you tip your hat to the coach for having the nerve to make the call. But IMO, the odds to win would have been greater in OT than it was in going for the 2-point conversion. Still, it was a gutsy call.
Things are out of your control in OT. There is no statistical way of tracking how you will do in OT, so you assume a 50/50 chance since the other team has chances to score. When you go for 2, you have more control. I wish coaches would go for 2 more often.

I have seen teams go for 2 100% of TDs they score and that percentage increases to about 80. You score more points that way. Give yourself a statistical advantage for your team.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
Things are out of your control in OT. There is no statistical way of tracking how you will do in OT, so you assume a 50/50 chance since the other team has chances to score. When you go for 2, you have more control. I wish coaches would go for 2 more often.

I have seen teams go for 2 100% of TDs they score and that percentage increases to about 80. You score more points that way. Give yourself a statistical advantage for your team.
I have no issue with CM going for two, but to say OT would have been a 50/50 proposition because both teams get the ball is like saying going for 2 was a 50/50 proposition because Ursuline has the chance to stop them. IMO, CM had a better than 50/50 shot at the 2-point conversion, but they also would have had a better than 50/50 shot if they had gone into OT.
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
I have no issue with CM going for two, but to say OT would have been a 50/50 proposition because both teams get the ball is like saying going for 2 was a 50/50 proposition because Ursuline has the chance to stop them. IMO, CM had a better than 50/50 shot at the 2-point conversion, but they also would have had a better than 50/50 shot if they had gone into OT.
It's not the same because you can track how often teams convert 2 point conversions. And as I stated, nation-wide for high school, the conversion rate is over 50% (almost 60%).
 

NY_Transplant

New member
Against a team like Massie or Kirtland, I’d go for two as well. Four cracks to go 10 yards in OT? That’s what they’re made for.
It's 20 yards in Ohio high school football:
OHSAA 2021 Football Tournament Regulations:
Section 3- general information;
7. Playing Rules The NFHS football rules as written and interpreted shall apply in all tournament games. There are 3 state adopted rules we use in Ohio: 1) The 20-yard overtime procedure, 2) The Point Differential Rule and 3) Replay at the State Final Championship Games. These rules are explained in detail in the 2021 OHSAA Football Officiating Mechanics Handbook (Gold Book), the 2021 OHSAA Football Manual and on the football page on the OHSAA website. The coin toss will be held at center field 20 minutes prior to game time in accordance with adopted mechanics.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
It's not the same because you can track how often teams convert 2 point conversions. And as I stated, nation-wide for high school, the conversion rate is over 50% (almost 60%).
I'm not so much questioning that as I am your presumption that OT was a 50/50 proposition. At that point in the game, given CM's dominant performance in the 2nd half, to claim OT to be a 50/50 proposition is disingenuous.
 

Captain_Cavman

Well-known member
Did you happen to see the Massie-Ursuline game today? I assume you didn’t like going for two. I respect that but given the way the game was played in the last quarter and a half it was pretty clear it was a correct call. It all depends on the flow and emotion of the game.
Great point.
Massie had the mojo at the end....USE IT.
Why take a chance on losing it?

In retrospect, I'm surprised Mooney didn't go for 2 in 2007 with that huge drive at the end of the game and with their size. As Kurt Schlarman commented, "l gotta do something cuz l doubt we'll hang on in OT"
He then broke thru a seem and blocked the PAT.
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
I'm not so much questioning that as I am your presumption that OT was a 50/50 proposition. At that point in the game, given CM's dominant performance in the 2nd half, to claim OT to be a 50/50 proposition is disingenuous.
It's not disingenuous, it's objective math. Too many people make decisions based on emotions, I'm taking the emotional aspect out of it (things like momentum) because as I stated, there is no statistical way to calculate odds in OT. There are too many variables, and most of them are out of your control.
 

Targeting!

Active member
From the story in the Vindicator:

After closing the deficit to one, the Falcons opted to go for two and the win.

“I thought we had the momentum of the game in our favor,” McSurley said. “I was thinking, ‘Let’s go ahead and kick it and we’ll beat these guys in overtime,’ but I gave these guys a choice. All the seniors said, ‘Coach, let’s go win this thing.'”

Even in their old fashioned, ground-and-pound wishbone offense, the Falcons have a lot of weapons offensively that a defense has to account for on any given play. A little misdirection and Clinton-Massie’s Carson Van Hoose found himself in the end zone to give the Falcons the lead.

“The play we went for two on — they’ve been running it since third grade,” McSurley said. “It was a thing of beauty — it was like Darrell Royal’s spirit came out of the grave and pulled Carson across the goal line.”
 

Irish60

Well-known member
It's not disingenuous, it's objective math. Too many people make decisions based on emotions, I'm taking the emotional aspect out of it (things like momentum) because as I stated, there is no statistical way to calculate odds in OT. There are too many variables, and most of them are out of your control.
But there IS a statistical way to measure odds in overtime. You CAN take variables into account. That's how statistics work. You claim to rely on objective math, but choose only to do so from one viewpoint of the argument. I'm suggesting that, statistically speaking, CM would have had as good of odds to win in overtime as it would have to convert on the 2-point conversion.
 

cincifbfan

Well-known member
But there IS a statistical way to measure odds in overtime. You CAN take variables into account. That's how statistics work. You claim to rely on objective math, but choose only to do so from one viewpoint of the argument. I'm suggesting that, statistically speaking, CM would have had as good of odds to win in overtime as it would have to convert on the 2-point conversion.
Show me how then, please.
 

Irish60

Well-known member
It's not disingenuous, it's objective math. Too many people make decisions based on emotions, I'm taking the emotional aspect out of it (things like momentum) because as I stated, there is no statistical way to calculate odds in OT. There are too many variables, and most of them are out of your control.
If you want objective math, look at https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-to-go-for-2-for-real/. Admittedly this is using NFL metrics which will be different from HS or college, but the conclusion is that in the situation facing CM at the end of the game, the decision whether to go for OT or go for 2 was, from a statistics standpoint, pretty much a wash.
 

kingpin2010

Well-known member
I don’t care if I’m favorite or underdog, have the momentum or not, give me 1 play to go 3 yards compared to having to go 20 AND having to stop the other team from going 20. The momentum doesn’t mean squat if the opponent gets the ball first in OT and scores.

My only gripe is I think teams get way too pass happy going for 2 and abandon the run.
 

algernonsidney

Well-known member
Let's think about all the times that a team is near the goal line and can tie the game with a field goal and chooses to go for the touchdown to win the game.

 

chs1971

Well-known member
I don’t care if I’m favorite or underdog, have the momentum or not, give me 1 play to go 3 yards compared to having to go 20 AND having to stop the other team from going 20. The momentum doesn’t mean squat if the opponent gets the ball first in OT and scores.

My only gripe is I think teams get way too pass happy going for 2 and abandon the run.
Which is why one of the very best coaches I knew always wanted the ball first in OT.
 

algernonsidney

Well-known member
Which is why one of the very best coaches I knew always wanted the ball first in OT.
That is another debate all by itself.

I have said that I would rather have it second--you know what you have to beat. Of course, game circumstances can also be a factor. Who scored to tie the game? How long has the game been tied?
 

Al_Bundy

Active member
Massie went for two with a state championship on the line. The place was electric. Everyone on their feet. A season's worth of blood, sweat and tears for both coming down to one snap for all the marbles. How can you not enjoy a moment like that?
That Massie comeback and 2pt conversion was one of the most incredible things I've seen in football at any level. And I loved Coach McSurley letting his players decide on the 2pt and them executing flawlessly.
 

dograt

Well-known member
Do you also detest when the decision on the last play comes down to a field goal or go for it? Do you detest when the last play is a hail mary? Do you detest when a coach has to decide to run or throw on a 4th down that will decide the game? Or is it only the 1 point-2 point decision you detest?
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Great point.
Massie had the mojo at the end....USE IT.
Why take a chance on losing it?

In retrospect, I'm surprised Mooney didn't go for 2 in 2007 with that huge drive at the end of the game and with their size. As Kurt Schlarman commented, "l gotta do something cuz l doubt we'll hang on in OT"
He then broke thru a seem and blocked the PAT.
Mooney didnt squeeze the Schlarmin!

During that drive in 2007 I was scared to death they would go for 2 because of how they were steamrolling on that drive I has pretty much assured they would have made it, but we will never know.



As I stated before....kicking and EP in HS is not a guarantee. If you have the full momentum, and gashing the team on that drive and you feel that is your best chance at winning then......DO IT!
 
.
Top