2-pt Conundrum

I don't care what the book says (btw who wrote the book?), I'd never go for 2 in the 3rd Qtr.

Harbaugh, and Michigan football in general, tend to approach the game scientifically. I haven’t seen “the book“, but I have heard the coaches refer to their decision-making based on objective criteria.  I don’t know if “the book” says what you think it says at that point in the game with that score differential, but to answer your second question, I was feeling fine from start to finish. Michigan was in control of that game throughout.

This has always seemed like a blackjack issue to me — there is a statistically objective answer to this question.  In blackjack it gets put on a card, and I assume it does in football as well.  Assume in football it’s a bit more complex, b/c there is the “time left” issue to consider, which might change things.  But it’s objective, so there doesn’t seem to be much need to have it be a feelingsball moment.  You look at the card and do what it says.  But it seems like it does.  Interested in those closer to coaching for insight here.

I don't think the Book accounts for the other team having zero points when we scored, and the extra point made it 20. You don't make it, it's 19 - 0

I was happy with that decision to kick the extra point.  First, from a momentum POV, we had it and I can see not wanting to give them anything to celebrate.

Second, from a game perspective, I guess you could claim it was unlikely but if we sit at 19, Iowa could technically tie the game with 2TDS, 2 2pt conversions and 1 FG as opposed to needing 3 TDs.  So I think it was a solid decision (or certainly a defendable decision).

The book changes when the other teams primary scoring is through safeties.

I think either way is defensible. I'll make the case for kicking the extra point there.

Iowa has to get 3 TDs at that point. We're probably figuring we're going to at least kick a FG again at some point. If we get to 23 points, Iowa is going to have to convert two 2-point conversions just to tie.

If we miss a 2-point attempt and kick a FG, they only need to convert one to tie.

Edit: Just saw Blue in NC's scenario. Also a good point in favor of the PAT.

My view: 19-0 is a three score difference.  And, if you go for one - to make the score 20-0, it is still a three score game - BUT, it's changes from two TD's and a field goal - to three TD's.

The same would be true at the 26-7 score.  A 20 point lead requires three TD's by your opponent - a 19 point lead is - two TD's with two point conversions, and a field goal?   Which is more difficult for your opponent to overcome?

I have absolutely no issue with the coaching staff's approach - and, kicking the extra point instead of going for two.

When Iowa was driving - and, the score was 20-7, it was still a two score game.  Was I bit anxious, in case a very, very terrible sequence occurred - including "lack of ball security"?   Yes, I was - you know, Kinnick and everything about it.   The good news was - the end result met expectations.

I don’t think he thought much of Iowa hence the vanilla game plan…I’m holding out hope that the good stuff is getting saved for the PSU , state and oHIO 

There is a definite benefit to being up 21 vs. 20, but there is also a benefit to being up 20 vs 19 - and mathematically, you're slightly more likely to fail than succeed.    I think it's defensible either way.

In both cases the theory is to protect against the most immediate threat. ie., Iowa scoring 3 td's as opposed to 2 td's and 2 fg's.

Well, i don't think anyone believed that Iowa would suddenly score 3 touchdowns. Hell, I would have believed Iowa was more likely to score 4 field goals before scoring 2+ touchdowns (meaningless 4th quarter TD not withstanding)

Thought about that too, but there's two considerations here:

1. If you assume that Iowa's offense will take safe FGs on 4th down instead of risking a turnover to go for a TD, making them put together 4 scoring drives is a safer bet for Michigan. 

2. Iowa still has an incredible defense which - though giving up points and yards - was capable of shutting down any given play. So do you run and take the chance that their NFL quality linebackers stuff the run, or do you pass and take the chance that your new starting QB is baited into an interception?

All in all, I'd bet that against a top defense, the Expected Points on a 2 point conversion is less than 1. So you actually come out ahead by kicking the extra point.

That would be moronic to chase a point in the third quarter.  Whatever book you are referring to is wrong.

The game was functionally over at 20-0.  There was no way Iowa was going to score enough points to threaten using their offense alone.  The only way was to get defensive scores - enabled by fumbles and/or interceptions.

Don't give them more opportunities through meaningless actions like unnecessary 2-pt conversions

Iowa was not going to score 20 points without significant help from Michigan.  There was no need to go for two.

I don't care.

In a shootout the question is a bit more pertinent. If we score 6 to go up 19 on OSU in the third, I'm assuming 3 TDs is a genuine threat, and I like the 2-point conversion. But Iowa, while being Iowa, still can expect four possessions or more for the rest of the game; frankly, 2 tds and 2 fgs is a much likelier scenario for them than 3 tds. I like going up by 20 there. (Also, it's a very remote possibility, but a TO on a conversion can be returned for 2 points and that would be a genuinely bad event reducing the lead to 17). 

The score to go up 26-7 happened with less than 5 minutes left in the game. It's over. 2 points is rubbing it in at that point. Which... well, I'm not exactly going to complain if Michigan does that, but it has no game theory application, so if Harbaugh isn't thinking "rub it in," may as well just kick. 

Ascending - in a slightly different situation - which took place a couple of weeks ago in Seattle.

MSU scored a TD - then, making the score 29-14 with about 12 minutes remaining in the 3rd quarter.  So, go for one, or two?   My thought - kick the XP - make it a 14 point game.  Let your D get a stop - score again - etc..  

However, this is an example - similar in a way to the Scott Frost decision for an onside kick against Northwestern - where Coach Tucker (like Scott Frost) - has far greater insight and football acumen than I do.

Tucker . MSU went for two - failed to convert - and, watched Washington score the next ten points in the game - to open up a 25 point lead.

Take the point - or points - when you can.   Especially, when you have a decent / solid lead.

Think you throw the book out with Iowa. I just think you take whatever easy points you can get when you are playing that type of team. That game seemed close for a minute, but it was over as soon as we went up two scores.

The "Book" isn't etched in stone.  Against Iowa, taking the point was correct.  They weren't gonna score three touchdowns.  The last td with eight seconds left chaps my ass as most people view that as a closer game.  20-0 after 3 qtrs is an insurmountable lead for that shitty Iowa offense.   

We're up 19-0 on Iowa and one thing the Book doesn't account for: 10 straight safeties by the Iowa defense and boom it's 20-19 and the upset of the year.

So Book that.

"'In both cases the theory is to protect against the most immediate threat. ie., Iowa scoring 3 td's", I can only assume Harbaugh didn't believe Iowa scoring three touchdowns was an immediate threat.

Meh, it seemed like 100 when we made it 19.

We aren't the kind of team to call a fake punt when up by 39....

It's Iowa, you really think 3 TDs is more likely than 2 TDs and two FGs?