# Going for 2

From Kirk Penton (the Athletic becoming worth every penny)

Three and a half years of data indicate teams successfully orchestrate the two-point convert 60.4 per cent of the time. Meanwhile, they are good on 89.5 per cent of one-point convert attempts. If you do the math, it breaks down like this: If a CFL team scores an average of 45 touchdowns per season, it would add an extra 54.4 points in converts if it went for two every time. It would add an extra 40.3 points if it only kicked converts.
Some other things to consider that the article takes care of nicely, highly recommend the read.

One thing to note, Hamilton doing their best to refute this stat the last couple years, going 50% last year and currently 0-2.

Agree with you.

The Athletic is worth every penny.

Probability %'s challenge many old school football mantras.

Someday we may see innovative coaches who think outside the box. 3rd and 2 on your own 40? How many current coaches do you think really know what the chances of their team making the 1st down are?

Hey, so that’s where Penton landed. I used to love his old column with anonymous quotes from CFL sources about random CFL topics.

Probabilities are great, but team-specific. I don’t think HAM has made a 2-point convert this year, have they? That implies that on 45 TDs, our total points going for 2 every time would be zero. (Obviously we’d make some eventually)

I sometimes feel like baseball is coached entirely on the basis of probabilities. e.g. switch to another batter because he has a slightly higher average against lefties. Makes it boring to me - as though it’s all a computer simulation (although baseball would be boring to me no matter how it was coached or played).

The times I wish football coaches had a better understanding of probabilities are when they do things like try a short kick-off instead of letting the defence attempt to make a stop within the final two minutes. I’d like to see the stats on successful short kick-offs.

Well it is not the same game exactly.

But during the 2016 NFL season there were 60 attempted onside kicks. 8 were successful for a 25% probability.

Like going into short yardage/goal line/2-point convert/etc situations AND LINING UP IN THE "PISTOL " FORMATION?
Like 3rd and 13 and attempting an onside quick kick?
Like running a draw play on first-and-twenty on the final drive of the game?

The trouble with “thinking outside the box”. You’re a genius when it works, a fool when it doesn’t.

Blatant noticing. Tsk.

Doesn't 8 successful in 60 attempts = 13.3% rate?/probability?

Like going into short yardage/goal line/2-point convert/etc situations AND LINING UP IN THE "PISTOL " FORMATION? Like 3rd and 13 and attempting an onside quick kick? Like running a draw play on first-and-twenty on the final drive of the game?
https://i.imgflip.com/2gfmy5.jpg

yeap. Ducking Excel doing strange things

Great statistical points or lack of points in Ti-Cats case 0-2 two point conversions.

I like it when my team goes for the two point conversions because it’s a drill under pressure to score .

What better way to get better at scoring than to go for it.

If we can achieve 50% we break even and gain experience under pressure , that’s what I like about going for “It”…

If I were to coach in the CFL, (or, at any level for that matter) the team would go for 2 on every TD scored in the 1st quarter and the first half of the 2nd quarter. After that, it would be a discretionary call as to the PAT or TPA.

When the change to the starting point was announced, Austin acknowledged that it really meant that no matter what a coach decided to do, we fans can always be sure that he made the wrong call.

Oskee wee wee

Explain??? Without a rationale there isn't much to debate between never and always going for TPA. Any statistical analysis to back-up that course of action?

0-3…

…from the shotgun…

ya, i'm okay with it on those plays. its from the 3. go nuts. just make it work

The LOS is the 3-yd-line, yes.
But in the shotgun/pistol formation, Masoli’s already 5 yards back = 8 yards.
Then he takes AT LEAST a 5-step dropback, so add another 4 yards = 12 yards.
Then he had to escape the rush, and took another 10 yards drop = 22 yards.
Then the pass goes incomplete.
Result - failure.

So for a play that SHOULD be designed for a quick-hitting pass play (slant, hook, etc) or an up-the-guts run play (or off-tackle, end-around, etc) ends up being a slow-developing, negative yardage pass play.

I hate going for 2, unless it us at the end of the game. The reason is the rouge. I have seen many times a team has gone for 2 early, not get it and end up losing by 2.