The Two Point Conversions Explained

[DVCfiend]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

 

[FitzHead]

You get brownie points for "making it a one score game" when you are only going to at most have 1 possession left

 

[PurpleHaze525]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

That's dumb

 

[willycat]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

The check will be in the mail!

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

Stretch.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1_rivals]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

Fitz certainly has embraced contemporary/analytic based thinking when it comes to this area.

However...

My gripe would be with the second two point conversion. It's a smart move to stay ahead of things/ascertain information by getting two early, but the risk of the second attempt (staying down two scores with 5 mins left) isn't justifiable, especially when your defense has been playing well, overtime be damned.

Side note (once NU got into chase mode after the second conversion attempt):

During the last drive, I wish the staff had decided to play for the field goal with a quick out on 3rd and long at Wisconsin 31; give Kuhbander a shot to cut it a one score game. You need the onside kick anyway and this approach would leave the offense some time to get the TD if the kick was recovered. With Wisconsin's ability to get pressure on NU's QBs, the patterns needed to pick up long yardage were unlikely to be effective.

 

[Fanaticat98]

I agree. The first one made little sense as it wasn’t going to reduce the possession deficit. Mostly downside with very little upside. The second was even more downside for less upside. By failing it created a nearly impossible 2 possession game. Much lower probability than taking the 1 and then having to convert a 2 pt at the end of the game.

 

[Overly_Invested_Cat]

I was more frustrated by the calls on the conversion attempts than the decision to go for two points twice. We need to deliver the ball to players in the end zone, not go wide on runs or trying tricky shovel passes in traffic. This is where we really miss Cameron Green.

Play calling was uninventive all day. The only surprise was the onside kick recovery, which was more of a Wisconsin mistake than an inspired NU play call.

 

[willycat]

I was more frustrated by the calls on the conversion attempts than the decision to go for two points twice. We need to deliver the ball to players in the end zone, not go wide on runs or trying tricky shovel passes in traffic. This is where we really miss Cameron Green.

Play calling was uninventive all day. The only surprise was the onside kick recovery, which was more of a Wisconsin mistake than an inspired NU play call.

Should have kicked the extra point. Didn't Fitz hold a press conference? Wildcat have his tongue?

 

[CSCatFan1]

I was more frustrated by the calls on the conversion attempts than the decision to go for two points twice. We need to deliver the ball to players in the end zone, not go wide on runs or trying tricky shovel passes in traffic. This is where we really miss Cameron Green.

Play calling was uninventive all day. The only surprise was the onside kick recovery, which was more of a Wisconsin mistake than an inspired NU play call.

Not sure I share your view on the on-side kick...looked to be terrific execution by Finison as he hit the ball perfectly resulting in the ricochet off the WI player. McGowan covered it perfectly as well. Just like they drew it up.

 

[wildcat229]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

You play to win when its 24-23 and go for 2. Fitz effectively turned a two score game into a three score game.

 

[Kiteboarder]

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

I disagree totally with you for the reasons posted in an earlier thread here:

Sorry if this has been discussed, but I'm still red-assed over this call. Normally, I don't pick on the coaches, but the call going for 2 when it was 24-9 was poor strategy, and just plain stupid. What were they thinking? The momentum was changing - (it later proved to be changing in a BIG way) as later in Q4, NU had about 152 yards to Wisconsin's 40 something. Taking a one point conversion puts the Cats down by 14 at that point. Another score and one point conversion puts them down by only 7. However, when NU scored the 2nd TD, they were forced to go for 2, and again, didn't convert. Subsequently, they needed two scores in addition to have to shut down the Wiscy offense.

You're playing the 8th ranked team on their turf. Go for OT when anything can happen (as we've seen the past couple of years) - especially since you have the momentum.

 

[NURoseBowl]

You get brownie points for "making it a one score game" when you are only going to at most have 1 possession left

Absofrickinlutely.

 

[chariots]

Avoiding OT is secondary to forcing your team to have four scores instead of three.

Kick the PAT on the first TD. Go for 2 on the second.

How hard is that?

 

[1830 Sherman]

More explanation can be found in TG's story:

“I was prepped that you’d ask me about two-point plays,” Fitzgerald said before being asked, “so I’m going to give you a couple of things.”

Fitzgerald first pointed to a YouTube video in which Ravens coach John Harbaugh explains why he attempted three two-point conversions last Sunday against the Chiefs, failing on every one.

“Those were clear analytics decisions,” Harbaugh said. “We had a mindset to try to score as many points as we could.”

Fitzgerald then pointed to his program’s analytics study, saying: “We try to shorten a game and have less possessions to win a game.”

 

[RiseNorthwestern]

Another long time lurker. Totally agree with this. I think the decisions to go for it were sound. The play calls on the otherhand...

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

 

[wildcat229]

More explanation can be found in TG's story:
fa

Fitzgerald then pointed to his program’s analytics study, saying: “We try to shorten a game and have less possessions to win a game.”

How does this make sense?
If the XP is kicked you have two possessions to try to win the game.
If you make the 2 point, you still have two possessions to try and win the game
If you miss the 2 point, you still have two possessions to try to win the game but have increased the odds of needing 3 by missing another 2 pointer.

 

[Fanaticat98]

The way Fitz explained it, is it possible when we went to 24-9 he was looking at the scenario on the chart where you’re down 15 AND then score a TD? The risk benefit of going for 2 at that point is so small. The only advantage is maybe Fitz thought Wisky wouldn’t try as hard to defend it thinking we weren’t really going to come back.

 

[DVCfiend]

I agree. The first one made little sense as it wasn’t going to reduce the possession deficit. Mostly downside with very little upside. The second was even more downside for less upside. By failing it created a nearly impossible 2 possession game. Much lower probability than taking the 1 and then having to convert a 2 pt at the end of the game.

To make sense of the first one you have to agree with Fitz’s theory that our odds of winning were better by settling things in regulation than in overtime. If you disagree with that notion there’s no sense debating this further; you kick the PAT’s.

To make sense of the second one think about this: how are your odds any better when you miss a late two with no time left to do anything about it compared to missing the two with four minutes left and the knowledge that you now need two scores instead of one? It may feel better to make it a one score game with four minutes left and lose on a missed conversion with seconds on the clock but statistically speaking the earlier you know what you need to win the better. It’s the same reason teams always choose to go on defense first in overtime. When you miss the two doesn’t change the fact that missing the two makes it a two possession game.

 

[bjm989_rivals]

This is an interesting conversation and I was completely in the camp that the first two point attempt was a mistake. I do agree with the idea that you want to try to win in regulation in this case (although I can think of a pretty good counterpoint from our last ND game in South Bend).

I guess I’d want to understand the probability of making two consecutive PATs versus the probability of making at least one of two 2pt conversions.

But I think there’s another angle, and that is the loss of momentum and pressure you put on the other team when you make it a two possession game instead of a one possession game. Or simply the mental win you give the other team when they stop your 2 pt try...

 

[ColumbusCatFan1_rivals]

To make sense of the second one think about this: how are your odds any better when you miss a late two with no time left to do anything about it compared to missing the two with four minutes left and the knowledge that you now need two scores instead of one? It may feel better to make it a one score game with four minutes left and lose on a missed conversion with seconds on the clock but statistically speaking the earlier you know what you need to win the better. It’s the same reason teams always choose to go on defense first in overtime. When you miss the two doesn’t change the fact that missing the two makes it a two possession game.

I’ve heard this rationale before and can buy it, but only if one doesn’t believe in “momentum”. Some people don’t.

(As one who thinks momentum is a real thing)
During late game scores/comebacks you often see sharpened focus and an extra adrenalin rush. This applies to 2pt conversions as well. Fitz mentions momentum on a regular basis, so it would appear that these two philosophies were at odds with one another this afternoon...unless he really had zero appetite for overtime, which would be quite suprising based on his past coaching history and his belief in the mental toughness of his teams.

I think Fitz simply out thought himself on this one.

Enjoyed this thread. Best one of the day, IMHO. Thank you for starting it.

 

[Kiteboarder]

To make sense of the second one think about this: how are your odds any better when you miss a late two with no time left to do anything about it compared to missing the two with four minutes left and the knowledge that you now need two scores instead of one? It may feel better to make it a one score game with four minutes left and lose on a missed conversion with seconds on the clock but statistically speaking the earlier you know what you need to win the better. It’s the same reason teams always choose to go on defense first in overtime. When you miss the two doesn’t change the fact that missing the two makes it a two possession game.

Once again, I disagree. The second two point conversion only made sense because you missed the first one and the odds for converting whatever they are, were no better than the first time.

And as far as a missed extra point kick, what are the odds of missing a kick, vs. coming up short on a two point conversion, given that you have an under performing offensive line, you were not playing your jumbo back, and you were playing a 3rd string QB? Think a little on where Wisconsin's defense was ranked prior to this game, and also reflect on NU's total offensive push, and the performance of their offensive line during the game. You can apply as much logic as you want, does not change my mind that it was a boneheaded/poor decision

 

[ColumbusCatFan1_rivals]

...But I think there’s another angle, and that is the loss of momentum and pressure you put on the other team when you make it a two possession game instead of a one possession game. Or simply the mental win you give the other team when they stop your 2 pt try...

Well put.

 

[evanston09]

By missing the first one you make yourself have to make two in a row. (Approx 25% w an average offense)

By kicking, you only have to make one. (approx 50% with an average offense)

Of course by making the first one you’d be in great shape, but to me the downside is greater than the upside. Not only are we not an avg offense, and I think a lot of that is play calling. So now a bad offense has to convert a great defense with their second AND third best plays from there.

I UNDERSTAND the rationale, I just don’t don’t think the numbers supporting it would correctly apply if it were measuring this offense vs their defense on our second and third best plays.

 

[Alaskawildkat]

I haven't posted in over ten years and it took this topic to pull me out of the shadows.

I'm dumbfounded that so many people don't understand the two point conversion rationale. I haven't heard Fitz's press conference answers so maybe I'm way off here but what I'm about to say makes sense to me.

When we scored the first touchdown we were on our third string quarterback and unable to move the ball all day. Overtime was likely not going to go well for us. If by some good fortune we were able to score two more touchdowns Fitz had already decided we weren't going to play for overtime. So rather than go for two at the end of the game down 24-23 with all the pressure on our offense he chose to do it at 24-9 when maybe Wisconsin wouldn't be as feisty defensively. Then if we make it and score twice more we kick two PAT's to win 25-24.

So what about the decision on the second two? Well if we intended to tie the game and force overtime we needed a two at some point. Option 1 was to kick the PAT to make it 24-16 and hope we get the two after the next touchdown to tie it. Option 2 was to go for 2 since we needed it at some point anyway, and if we didn't make it ok now we know we need two scores while we still have time to do something about it, as opposed to putting all our eggs in the basket of that final two point conversation at the end of the game when there may not be any time left.

But remember Fitz already established we were not playing for overtime anyway. I guarantee you if we had made that second two point conversion to make it 24-17 and scored again he would have gone for two and the win down 24-23. 24-24 was never the goal-- 25-24 was, and a PAT down 24-15 doesn't get you there.

My wife and I figured this out within 5 seconds of that first two point conversion. I'm not surprised the announcers and probably a good portion of the general public were befuddled but there was a method to Fitz's madness. You don't get any brownie points for "making it a one score game." You either win the game or you don't. Fitz was playing to win.

Unorthodox for sure, but not stupid.

Since I did not get to hear the TV announcers I don’t know what their comments were, but on WGN Dave’s comment after the first conversion attempt echoed your analysis. Something to the effect that “you are going to need two at some point, so why not now?”

Likely the second attempt was an effort to get back the lost point so overtime would at least then be an option. (Going back and reading the subsequent comments it looks like others agree.)

 

[Deeringfish]

The trouble with the first one was failure kills the momentum of the TD. TDs are a win, TD and Point Afters are a win, win. the failure turns the ins of the TD into a loss.
The second attempt was necessary because of the failed first attempt.

 

[CSCatFan1]

Ive got news for everyone...at the end of the day our offense wasn’t converting a 2-pt conversion against that defense after the first TD, the second TD, or a third TD with all the pressure to push the game to OT.

 

[willycat]

Since I did not get to hear the TV announcers I don’t know what their comments were, but on WGN Dave’s comment after the first conversion attempt echoed your analysis. Something to the effect that “you are going to need two at some point, so why not now?”

Likely the second attempt was an effort to get back the lost point so overtime would at least then be an option. (Going back and reading the subsequent comments it looks like others agree.)

The TV guys and every other pundit, both local and national I've heard have stated that the call was a bad one. Real bad.

 

[DVCfiend]

Watched some of the Army-Tulane game today. Army is down 21 late in the 4th. They score with 3 minutes left. Go for 2, miss it. They score again 20 seconds later to pull within 15. Go for 2, miss it. Lose by 9. Announcers point out several times how it makes sense to go for 2 down 15 since you want to know what you need as early as possible rather than get apoplectic that the coach didn't try to "make it a one score game". Refreshing.

Army getting 3 yards against Tulane is exponentially more likely than us getting 3 yards against Wisconsin but I had to laugh at the similarities.