# Down by 8: PAT or 2 Pt Conversion? **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [December 7, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368 "2009-12-07T21:30:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/61 "2009-12-08T19:43:16Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > That’s a total cop-out. Leave it there and I’ll claim victory. > > Or you could just address the nicely condensed post 54. It’s not a cop out at all, I’m simply saying that I can’t do anything to address it without your repeating the statements I tried to rebut in my last post, so first we have to come to an understanding on those points to continue. > [@Post #54](#): > > The second 2PC has nothing to do with it. The second touchdown is much more likely to be scored if that’s the only score you need. That’s because you can take your time, put together a good drive, etc… If you need two scores, you’re going to have to rush as fast as you can and fling it all down the sideline and you’ll be much more likely to fail miserably. Yes, if you need two scores you’re much more likely to fail. I think maybe the only error you’re making is assuming that, after kicking the PAT to get within 8, you need only one score. This is not the case: after kicking the PAT, _you don’t know how many scores you need_, and you won’t find out until after you try your 2PC. We’ve already agreed that a 2PC is as likely to succeed now as later. So, depending entirely on whether it’s going to succeed, the proper strategy would either be to kickoff, play defense, etc., or to onside kick and rush your offense like a madman. If you choose to put off the 2PC, you have to guess which strategy is correct. If you do it now, you’ll know. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/62 "2009-12-08T19:48:06Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > “Claim victory?” Why, I do believe you’re serious. In the debate with VarlosZ, not the entire thread. I see you’re taking up his cause though, so let’s take a look. > [@](#): > > With 2:30 to play, you score a touchdown and make the score 15-6. Two possible paths you could take - > > 1. get the PAT, kick off, try to get the ball back, score, go for two. > – if you fail the two point try here, you lose. Your chances of winning are equal to the chances of you converting a PAT, getting the ball back, scoring a touchdown, and getting a two-point conversion. > > 2. go for two. > – A. if you get it, kick off, try to get the ball back, score, get PAT. > – B. if you don’t get it, onside kick, try to get two more scores. The two scores in option 2B make both scores much lower percentage because you have much less time for each of them. Also, notice that the “onside kick” option appears in the “2” section but not in the “1” section. That makes it a fair statement to say that option 2 maximizes the chance you’ll need an onside kick. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/63 "2009-12-08T19:50:55Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > I think maybe the only error you’re making is assuming that, after kicking the PAT to get within 8, you need only one score. This is not the case: after kicking the PAT, _you don’t know how many scores you need_, and you won’t find out until after you try your 2PC. If this is what you actually believe, wouldn’t you play as if you need two scores when down by 8? (Similar logic will apply to down by 7, because PATs are not automatic.) ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/64 "2009-12-08T19:52:48Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > That makes it a fair statement to say that option 2 maximizes the chance you’ll need an onside kick. No, that makes it fair to say that option 2 maximizes the chances you will \*attempt \*an onside kick. Whether you \*need \*one is determined solely by whether the 2PC is successful. The problem with option 1 is that you won’t try the onside kick because you are simply assuming that you won’t need it, even though that assumption will often (usually) be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/65 "2009-12-08T19:56:47Z")
> [@](#): > > The two scores in option 2B make both scores much lower percentage because you have much less time for each of them. “Much less time for each of them” compared to what, exactly? Certainly not compared to the amount of time you’ll have to get the third score if you kick the PAT and then fail your two point try with 4 seconds left. It seems to be the case that you are assigning value to the scenario with a failed two point try as time expires that doesn’t actually exist. Just because you’ve played the game _as if_ you were going to tie it up at the very end doesn’t mean you’ve taken the right approach when you fail to tie it up. It won’t mean much that you had plenty of time to make your scoring drives when you don’t get enough points out of them. No matter how confident you were about the touchdown, you still lose when you don’t get the two. Look at it this way - say you know you’re going to fail your two point try, but you have to attempt one anyway. You’d attempt it right away and try to desperately scrabble to make up the points, wouldn’t you? So that’s the choice if you’re going to fail. If you’re going to make it, it doesn’t matter when you attempt it. So add them up and divide by two, and you’re left in the same place – a slightly better chance of tying the game (I keep saying winning, which isn’t accurate) if you go for two right away. Oh, and: > [@](#): > > That makes it a fair statement to say that option 2 maximizes the chance you’ll need an onside kick. No it doesn’t, but more importantly that isn’t exactly what you said. You said **Varlos** was saying that “the smart play is to maximize the chances you’ll do an onside kick,” which is a bit different from recognizing the incidental effect. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/66 "2009-12-08T20:00:05Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’d go for one. > > Case A- Overtime is acceptable. Going for one means I can get a TD plus XP to tie the game. If I go for 2 and miss it, that means if I get a TD I would be forced to once again go for 2 in order to force OT. If I’m not afraid of overtime, I’ll go for one. No brainer in my opinion. > Case B- Overtime is Not Acceptable. Still going for one. If I go for two and miss it, that means I need two more possessions to win. (maybe TD/PAT + FG, in either order). If I go for two and make it, then I can win with TD+PAT. I say get within 7 first, get the ball back, try to score a TD, then you can go for 2 points and a win at that point. It is rarely this black and white. There’s no team in existence whose shot of winning in overtime is 0%, and there’s no team whose shot of winning in overtime is 100%. Your case A devalues the difference between winning and going into overtime. Your case B also devalues the the difference between going into overtime and outright losing. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/67 "2009-12-08T20:03:28Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > If this is what you actually believe, wouldn’t you play as if you need two scores when down by 8? No, since at that point you don’t know, _and have no way to find out_, whether you need one score or two, so you’re better off maximizing your chances at succeeding at the one-score path to victory since your chances of succeeding at the two-score path are so slim. (And, besides, you don’t want to score quickly, make the 2PC, then leave the other team with plenty of time to march down and score.) Down by 9 following a TD is different, however, because you have the option to find out right now whether you only need one score or two. In the down by 8 to start the drive scenario, if you were given the option to try your 2PC before you the drive’s first play, obviously you’d take it so you’d know whether you need to save time. There’d be no reason not to try the 2PC before the drive. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/68 "2009-12-08T20:08:35Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > Look at it this way - say you know you’re going to fail your two point try, but you have to attempt one anyway. You’d attempt it right away and try to desperately scrabble to make up the points, wouldn’t you? So that’s the choice if you’re going to fail. If you’re going to make it, it doesn’t matter when you attempt it. So add them up and divide by two, and you’re left in the same place – a slightly better chance of tying the game (I keep saying winning, which isn’t accurate) if you go for two right away. The fundamental flaw in the argument you and VarlosZ are making is that the less time you have to score the less chance you will score. If you miss the two point conversion, you now know you need two more scores. That means your next possession will be much more rushed because you will do everything you can to leave enough time to score _again_ after that. That reduces the chance you get the next touchdown in the first place, PAT/2PC be damned. If, OTOH, you start with a PAT and pull within 8, you can take your time and greatly improve your chances of getting that next touchdown. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/69 "2009-12-08T20:15:52Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > you’re better off maximizing your chances at succeeding at the one-score path to victory since your chances of succeeding at the two-score path are so slim. This is my position in a nutshell, though I recognize I clipped off the highly relevant “have no way of knowing” part. I clipped it off because the remaining part is exactly what I’m saying. Here’s the thing: no matter what, you need 1 more touchdown. You may or may not need another drive after that, and if you need another drive the clock may or may not have already expired. But we absolutely need that 1 touchdown. My argument is focused on maximizing the chance for success for that one touchdown we need no matter what. Missing the 2PC to start with is \>50% chance, and that directly results in a more rushed and therefore less successful drive for that 1 touchdown. (Because we need more after it, including an onside kick.) ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/70 "2009-12-08T20:18:10Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > The fundamental flaw in the argument you and VarlosZ are making is that the less time you have to score the less chance you will score. > > If you miss the two point conversion, you now know you need two more scores. That means your next possession will be much more rushed because you will do everything you can to leave enough time to score _again_ after that. That reduces the chance you get the next touchdown in the first place, PAT/2PC be damned. > > If, OTOH, you start with a PAT and pull within 8, you can take your time and greatly improve your chances of getting that next touchdown. Well sure, but you are comparing missing the 2PC to maybe not missing it. Of course the not missing it situation is better. Say you made the PAT after the first touchdown, and God came down and told you that you’d miss the 2PC if you got your 2nd touchdown. Would you onside kick, fling the ball recklessly, and otherwise act desperately, since you know you need 2 scores, or would you take a bunch of time doing a high percentage drive? Would you prefer God didn’t tell you? (given that you’ll still miss the 2PC) ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/71 "2009-12-08T20:18:29Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > The fundamental flaw in the argument you and VarlosZ are making is that the less time you have to score the less chance you will score. > > If you miss the two point conversion, you now know you need two more scores. That means your next possession will be much more rushed because you will do everything you can to leave enough time to score _again_ after that. That reduces the chance you get the next touchdown in the first place, PAT/2PC be damned. > > If, OTOH, you start with a PAT and pull within 8, you can take your time and greatly improve your chances of getting that next touchdown. But if it turns out that you’re going to fail at the 2PC, then taking your time on the TD is the _wrong strategy_. If you try it first, then if it’s the wrong strategy you can avoid it. Or look at it from the other direction: The 2PC will either succeed or fail, and the odds of it’s success or failure are the same no matter when you go for it. If it’s going to succeed, then it doesn’t matter whether you do it after the first TD or the second. However, most of the time it’s going to fail, and if it fails it \*does \*matter when you go for it, since only going for it early will let you know that it’s a failure while you can still do something about it and salvage some small chance of victory. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/72 "2009-12-08T20:19:33Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > In the down by 8 to start the drive scenario, if you were given the option to try your 2PC before you the drive’s first play, obviously you’d take it so you’d know whether you need to save time. There’d be no reason not to try the 2PC before the drive. This is a very interesting way to put it. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/73 "2009-12-08T20:24:04Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Here’s the thing: no matter what, you need 1 more touchdown. You may or may not need another drive after that, and if you need another drive the clock may or may not have already expired. But we absolutely need that 1 touchdown. Right, but go back to the down by 8 at the start of the drive scenario. Wouldn’t you take the opportunity to try the 2PC before the drive so you’d know just how hurried you have to be? And if you tried the 2PC at the start and failed, even though you still absolutely need that one touchdown, you wouldn’t take your time scoring to maximize your chance of getting the one TD, since if you kill the whole clock on the way to that score then it’s worthless. This is functionally identical to what we’re talking about. You have the option to take the 2PC before the next drive, and you should. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/74 "2009-12-08T20:24:35Z")
When all is said and done, I’d **much** rather lose the game by 2 points on a missed 2PC with 10 seconds left than by 9 points with 1:50 left when it gets picked off because I’m desperately heaving it down the field to score quickly or by 6 points with 1:30 left when I fail to recover the onside kick. Going for two to start with makes the latter two probable (\>50% combined), while going for one makes the former probable. (\>50%) You guys keep arguing like an onside kick is a reasonable and viable option. It just isn’t. If you need three scores, you guaranteed lose. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/75 "2009-12-08T20:29:09Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > When all is said and done, I’d **much** rather lose the game by 2 points on a missed 2PC with 10 seconds left than by 9 points with 1:50 left when it gets picked off because I’m desperately heaving it down the field to score quickly or by 2 points with 1:30 left when I fail to recover the onside kick. Ok, that’s fine. Everything I’ve been saying is based on just caring whether you win or lose, without worrying about how much you win or lose by. The strategy of going for 2 on the first TD definitely makes it more likely you’ll lose by a lot, and kicking the PAT makes it more likely that you’ll lose by a smaller amount. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/76 "2009-12-08T20:30:01Z")
Actually, let’s go with that. If an onside kick is guaranteed to fail, what is the optimal strategy and why? EDIT: > [@borschevsky](#): > > Ok, that’s fine. Everything I’ve been saying is based on just caring whether you win or lose, without worrying about how much you win or lose by. Actually my concern is being competitive. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/77 "2009-12-08T20:36:07Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Actually, let’s go with that. If an onside kick is guaranteed to fail, what is the optimal strategy and why? If you’re playing in the NFL, the two strategies are identical. If you’re playing college football, kicking the PAT first will make it look like the game is more competitive if you lose, which could have a positive effect on your poll ratings. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/78 "2009-12-08T20:37:32Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > You guys keep arguing like an onside kick is a reasonable and viable option. It just isn’t. What we’re arguing is that an onside kick, no matter how undesirable, might be _necessary_, and putting off the 2PC doesn’t make it any less likely to be necessary. > [@EllisDee](#): > > Actually, let’s go with that. If an onside kick is guaranteed to fail, what is the optimal strategy and why? Probably still to go for the 2PC early so that you’re defense knows whether it has to try and strip the ball at all costs, etc. It wouldn’t matter as much, however, since if onside kicks are 100% fail then you \*almost \*have to make the 2PC in order to win, therefore it \*almost \*doesn’t matter whether you try it first or second. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/79 "2009-12-08T20:37:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Scud](#): > > If you’re playing in the NFL, the two strategies are identical. > > If you’re playing college football, kicking the PAT first will make it look like the game is more competitive if you lose, which could have a positive effect on your poll ratings. You say it looks more competitive, I say it will be competitive for longer, which IMO is actually more competitive. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368/80 "2009-12-08T20:39:45Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Probably still to go for the 2PC early so that you’re defense knows whether it has to try and strip the ball at all costs, etc. It wouldn’t matter as much, however, since if onside kicks are 100% fail then you \*almost \*have to make the 2PC in order to win, therefore it \*almost \*doesn’t matter whether you try it first or second. No almost about it; assume you can’t strip the ball out of the victory formation. (Come on, at some point even dopers can overdose on pedantry, right?) EDIT: > [@VarlosZ](#): > > What we’re arguing is that an onside kick, no matter how undesirable, might be _necessary_, and putting off the 2PC doesn’t make it any less likely to be necessary. It’s really not, though. You put all your eggs in the single 2PC basket. Onside kick is never necessary because you’re letting the game be decided on the 2PC _instead_ of allowing the not-insignificant possibility of having to recover an onside kick. This lets you drive for the touchdown in a more thoughtful manner because you don’t need (or want) to leave any time on the clock. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/down-by-8-pat-or-2-pt-conversion/520368.md?page=5)