Extra Point rule has changed

[hondo in seattle]

For those who think we won't see a spike in 2 point conversions, think about this.

 

The success for kicks that far out is about 94%. So the expected point total for each PAT kick is .94.

 

The success rate last year for two point conversions was 48%. But since it's for 2 points, the expected point gain is .96.

 

In other words, statistically speaking, the rational decision is to go for the 2 point conversion after every TD except late in a game when 1 point is enough for the win.

 

Of course, the expected points will vary from team to team depending on the comparative quality of their kick game and red zone offense.

 

Here's a good article about the math of the new conversion...

 

http://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2015/05/math_says_dan_carpenter_buffalo_bills_will_benefit_from_the_nfls_extra-point_rul.html

Edited May 21, 2015 by hondo in seattle

[Big Turk]

For those who think we won't see a spike in 2 point conversions, think about this.

 

The success for kicks that far out is about 94%. So the expected point total for each PAT kick is .94.

 

The success rate last year for two point conversions was 48%. But since it's for 2 points, the expected point gain is .96.

 

In other words, statistically speaking, the rational decision is to go for the 2 point conversion after every TD except late in a game when 1 point is enough for the win.

 

Of course, the expected points will vary from team to team depending on the comparative quality of their kick game and red zone offense.

 

Here's a good article about the math of the new conversion...

 

http://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2015/05/math_says_dan_carpenter_buffalo_bills_will_benefit_from_the_nfls_extra-point_rul.html

Likely we will find the rate of conversion for extra points will drop...there were likely only about 70-80 kicks from 33 yards last year whereas now there will be 600-700 kicks, meaning much more of a chance for something to go wrong or miss the kick...

[MDH]

 

The odds for the XP got worse, so I don't know how you can say nothing changed.

I dont think they actually understand the math you laid out for them.

[K D]

Now we know why the Eagles signed Tebow. He was unstoppable in college in goal line situations. He might be the NFL's first 2 point specialist. We have a kickoff specialist so why not a 2 point specialist that will actually score you points?

[nucci]

It takes away the option of a fake kick. Also a bad or fumbled snap makes it more difficult to recover and score from 15 as opposed to the 2 yd line.

Now we know why the Eagles signed Tebow. He was unstoppable in college in goal line situations. He might be the NFL's first 2 point specialist. We have a kickoff specialist so why not a 2 point specialist that will actually score you points?

They signed Tebow before the rule change.

[K D]

They signed Tebow before the rule change.

Foresight

[What a Tuel]

For those who think we won't see a spike in 2 point conversions, think about this.

 

The success for kicks that far out is about 94%. So the expected point total for each PAT kick is .94.

 

The success rate last year for two point conversions was 48%. But since it's for 2 points, the expected point gain is .96.

 

In other words, statistically speaking, the rational decision is to go for the 2 point conversion after every TD except late in a game when 1 point is enough for the win.

 

Of course, the expected points will vary from team to team depending on the comparative quality of their kick game and red zone offense.

 

Here's a good article about the math of the new conversion...

 

http://www.syracuse.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2015/05/math_says_dan_carpenter_buffalo_bills_will_benefit_from_the_nfls_extra-point_rul.html

 

 

Maybe I am just not understanding the math, but you still have a 48% chance to get the 2 point conversion no matter how many points it nets you. Why would you double the odds?

 

Going by last years stats that you provided, you have a 48% chance to get two points, and a 52% chance to get zero. Whereas the extra point will be a 94% chance to get one point, and a 6% chance to get zero. You don't get two tries (doubling your odds) for the 2 pt conversion because its worth 2 points. Maybe I just don't understand what "expected point total" actually means.

 

Although like others have said that 94% may drop if there are an extra several hundred kicks contributing to the statistics, but I bet so will the 2 pt conversion odds as well.

Edited May 25, 2015 by What a Tuel

[eball]

 

Maybe I am just not understanding the math, but you still have a 48% chance to get the 2 point conversion no matter how many points it nets you. Why would you double the odds?

 

Going by last years stats that you provided, you have a 48% chance to get two points, and a 52% chance to get zero. Whereas the extra point will be a 94% chance to get one point, and a 6% chance to get zero. You don't get two tries (doubling your odds) for the 2 pt conversion because its worth 2 points. Maybe I just don't understand what "expected point total" actually means.

 

Although like others have said that 94% may drop if there are an extra several hundred kicks contributing to the statistics, but I bet so will the 2 pt conversion odds as well.

 

Bingo. With the 2-pt try you wind up with either 0 or 2; you can't get 1. With the PAT you wind up with 0 or 1; you can't get 2. At a 48% success rate of getting 2 pts., the expected points per 2-pt. try is 0.96 (over 100 tries, you score 96 pts). The expected points per PAT is 0.94 (estimated).

 

Over the long run, assuming league averages hold, for two teams scoring an equal number of TDs the team that always goes for 2 will score more points than the team that always kicks the PAT.

 

How will this play out in practice? I presume that traditionally conservative coaches will continue to kick the PAT unless "forced" to go for 2 -- i.e., based upon the "when to go for 2" chart. It will be very interesting to see if any coaches abandon the PAT early in games. I think if I were coaching I would kick the PAT after every TD in preseason so I wasn't giving anyone any film of my real intentions.

Edited May 25, 2015 by eball

[What a Tuel]

 

Bingo. With the 2-pt try you wind up with either 0 or 2; you can't get 1. With the PAT you wind up with 0 or 1; you can't get 2. At a 48% success rate of getting 2 pts., the expected points per 2-pt. try is 0.96 (over 100 tries, you score 96 pts). The expected points per PAT is 0.94 (estimated).

 

Over the long run, assuming league averages hold, for two teams scoring an equal number of TDs the team that always goes for 2 will score more points than the team that always kicks the PAT.

 

How will this play out in practice? I presume that traditionally conservative coaches will continue to kick the PAT unless "forced" to go for 2 -- i.e., based upon the "when to go for 2" chart. It will be very interesting to see if any coaches abandon the PAT early in games. I think if I were coaching I would kick the PAT after every TD in preseason so I wasn't giving anyone any film of my real intentions.

 

Thank you. I see the math of it, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

 

While you would average out to a slight higher amount of points overall if you look at it that way, the chance to come away with no points is still far greater in my opinion because these tries are independent of their predecessors. Going for 2 two point conversions does not mean you should expect at least 2 points.

 

I think the basis of this thought is that the field goal accuracy has a much larger sample size and stability whereas the two point conversion percentage has a shaky sample size, and a lot more variables to it.

 

I know I am going against math and probability here but when has that ever worked for sports in general?

[eball]

 

Thank you. I see the math of it, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

 

While you would average out to a slight higher amount of points overall if you look at it that way, the chance to come away with no points is still far greater in my opinion because these tries are independent of their predecessors. Going for 2 two point conversions does not mean you should expect at least 2 points.

 

I think the basis of this thought is that the field goal accuracy has a much larger sample size and stability whereas the two point conversion percentage has a shaky sample size, and a lot more variables to it.

 

I know I am going against math and probability here but when has that ever worked for sports in general?

It only works if the averages hold and a team consistently follows a strategy. If the coach does it by the odds 75% of the time but plays a hunch 25% of the time, he'll probably lose.

 

Think basic strategy in blackjack. Nobody wants to hit a 16, and you'll probably lose that hand, but if you're disciplined then over the long run you'll nearly break even.

[Chilly]

The problem is the variance in the two point conversion is much higher, and a win or loss in a football game is a short term event, there will still be a lot of coaches that air on the side of giving up points to gain less short term variance.

[bbb]

The problem is the variance in the two point conversion is much higher, and a win or loss in a football game is a short term event, there will still be a lot of coaches that air on the side of giving up points to gain less short term variance.

 

I want to forget about math on the weekends

[machine gun kelly]

The problem with doing the math and percentages on 2 pt conversions vs. extra points, is simple. Coaches only consider winning that game. If there are 48% chance of converting over a 2 pt conversion, yes on a 100 tries you would receives more points than a 94% on extra points. coaches will only think about that game, and a 94% chance of one point on each try is better than a 48% of 2pts.

 

They basically will continue to use the "bird in the hand" philosophy on decisions.

 

Now if they would have compromised and moved the two point conversion to 1.5 yard line, you would tempt more coaches to go for it. I know they didn't want the 1 yard line, but if you want more drama, moving up at all would make for more going for two. I'd love to see it. Then again, I didn't care about extra points on the old spot, as it's a chance to grab a beer, go to the bathroom, etc.

[What a Tuel]

The problem with doing the math and percentages on 2 pt conversions vs. extra points, is simple. Coaches only consider winning that game. If there are 48% chance of converting over a 2 pt conversion, yes on a 100 tries you would receives more points than a 94% on extra points. coaches will only think about that game, and a 94% chance of one point on each try is better than a 48% of 2pts.

 

They basically will continue to use the "bird in the hand" philosophy on decisions.

 

Now if they would have compromised and moved the two point conversion to 1.5 yard line, you would tempt more coaches to go for it. I know they didn't want the 1 yard line, but if you want more drama, moving up at all would make for more going for two. I'd love to see it. Then again, I didn't care about extra points on the old spot, as it's a chance to grab a beer, go to the bathroom, etc.

 

Yeah this is kind of how I feel. I'm also conflicted on how these points won't be so rounded now. Such as 14-10, instead it could be 14-11 or possibly 16-11. Kind of makes a world of difference. Maybe makes it more exciting to be able to tie, maybe it makes it less exciting because there may be more winning field goals. I wonder if they actually put some time and effort into examining this aspect. Especially if the league splits on what they prefer, to kick or to go for it. Maybe it is all in my head, but I think it will definitely impact the way we look at the end game. We shall see.

 

It only works if the averages hold and a team consistently follows a strategy. If the coach does it by the odds 75% of the time but plays a hunch 25% of the time, he'll probably lose.

 

Think basic strategy in blackjack. Nobody wants to hit a 16, and you'll probably lose that hand, but if you're disciplined then over the long run you'll nearly break even.

 

I see what you are saying. Just hard for me to see it applied in the game. We shall see though.

Edited May 27, 2015 by What a Tuel

[eball]

 

Yeah this is kind of how I feel. I'm also conflicted on how these points won't be so rounded now. Such as 14-10, instead it could be 14-11 or possibly 16-11. Kind of makes a world of difference. Maybe makes it more exciting to be able to tie, maybe it makes it less exciting because there may be more winning field goals. I wonder if they actually put some time and effort into examining this aspect. Especially if the league splits on what they prefer, to kick or to go for it. Maybe it is all in my head, but I think it will definitely impact the way we look at the end game. We shall see.

 

 

I see what you are saying. Just hard for me to see it applied in the game. We shall see though.

 

It's going to be very interesting.

[hondo in seattle]

Rational coaches who have good short yardage offenses should go for the 2 point conversion every time.

 

But most coaches are not rational, they're conservative. So it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

This all reminds me of the conversations about "The Coach Who Never Punts." Kevin Kelley is the high school coach who wins championships partly letting math guide his decisions. And he's decided that going for it on 4th down is, statistically speaking, always the better option.

 

According to UC/Berkeley professor, David Romer, no NFL team should punt when facing 4th and 4 or less. Despite all the analyses of likely outcomes, NFL coaches still usually punt.

 

I still believe they're will be a spike in 2 point conversions but the one point PAT kick will still be the norm.

 

http://grantland.com/features/grantland-channel-coach-never-punts/

[OCinBuffalo]

If they want to make it more interesting make whatever unit was on the field at the time of the score go for the extra point

Love this idea. That would be great. I was young, but I think I remember Danny White of the Cowboys being a QB, but also the kicker or punter.

[bbb]

And, have them do it with one hand tied behind their back.

[CodeMonkey]

 

I want to forget about math on the weekends

Which is why God created tailgating.

Edited May 28, 2015 by CodeMonkey

[billsfan89]

 

Agree 100%. This rule change is an improvement over the boring automatic kick, but only marginally. Eliminating the PAT kick altogether and requiring teams to go for PAT on a real football play would be much more interesting.

 

I would actually change the rule to be touchdowns are worth 7 and the extra point is what now is a 2 point conversion, and you can go for 2 by trying to get into the endzone from the 15 yard line. By making TD's worth more you make field goals worth less. Also by making TD's worth up to 9 you keep more teams in games more. Also the drama of teams having to make extra points and more difficult two point conversions makes the play much more interesting as opposed to a mere afterthought.

 

From 15 yards out kickers are going to be pretty close to automatic. It really doesn't add that much to the play. I also hate the teams can run back the two point conversion for a score, that seems more like a college type rule.