Up 7 - go for one or two?

Because you force the other team to have to score and then convert their own 2 point conversion. 

You kick the extra point and make them accomplish the hard part in getting the two point conversion. It’s that simple. 

I have to admit, I wondered for a second if Harbaugh was going to go for two.  Only because he has gone for pointless two point conversions (and converted them) before against Rutgers.  But those were blowouts.  The way this game went, kicking the PAT was the right thing. 

Always 1. 

They did the right thing. A two point conversion is supposed to be hard to achieve. If the defense just wraps up and tackles that game ends right there. It was kind of the story of the way the defense played throughout the game.

I was thinking they could consider going for 2 but Schiano had already tried an onside kick earlier and we've seen teams go for the win in those situations at the end of the game.  I assume Michigan, erroneously, believed they'd be able to stop Rutgers on the next drive.

It's one of those game theory questions that I don't get too worked up about, even though it obviously could have played out differently here.

Because its much harder to convert a two point conversion rather than an extra point.  Make Rutgers convert the 2 point conversion to take it to overtime.

You kick the extra point and go up 8.  As we all seen, the 2 point conversion play DID NOT WORK.

I appreciate the discussion topic, but we have actual evidence on how it played out that informs the answer. 
 

Rutgers was able to go for two and get it.  We went for two in OT and didn’t.  I think it’s reasonable to assume that each team played its best designed two-point play.  While circumstances differ and things happen, I think the odds are that, had we gone for two in regulation, we run the same play, don’t convert and are up 7. IF they went for two they likely run the same play, get it and win.  (Oh boy, wouldn’t we be in a good mood if that had happened!)

So, the real question to me is would Schiano have pulled the trigger and gone for the win rather than OT.  One play to beat Michigan with a historically depleted D???? I think it very likely he goes for two and we would have lost the game. 
 

So, our coaches got this one right. 

Assume odds of making extra point = 90%, odds converting for 2 = 50%, odds that Rutgers goes for 2 if Michigan is up 7 50 %, odds Rutgers scores TD late 100%.  And these odds are static and the same for both teams (that is a lot of assumptions, but still gives interesting results)

If M kicks extra point, there is 48% chance M wins in regulation, 2.5% chance Rutgers wins in regulation and 49.5% chance of OT.

If M goes for 2, 65% chance of M wins in regulation, 12.5% chance Rutgers wins in regulation and 22.5 % chance of OT.

Assuming OT odds of winning are 50/50.

Kicking extra point gives M 72.75% win chance, going for 2 gives M 76.25% win chance.  So pretty close given odds I choose.  If the 2 pt conversion rate is actually less than around 47% then kicking extra results in higher likelihood of winning (given these conditions).  NCAA average 2 pt conversion success rate is just above 40%.

Btw the odds of a M win were actually probably higher because there was at least some chance Rutgers doesn't score late TD.

Go for 1

For me, I had more confidence in our offense than our defense at that time.  I would have been onboard going for 2.  I hate the "play not to lose" argument for going for 1.

I vote go for 2, but I'm not going to have an argument about it or die on this hill.

I agree that going for 2 is the correct decision in that scenario OP. You could do some actual game theory math on this with guesses on how likely you are to make a 2-point conversion, and how likely they are to make one, and how likely, if at all, they are to go for 2 at the end of regulation down 1 (I'm too lazy to figure it out).

Bottom line your defense is not good and doesn't stop anybody, and a 2-point conversion wins the game right there while missing the conversion seems unlikely to lose the game.

Yeah I had the same thought. I'd have gone for 2.

this is monkeyballs.  you take the extra point to guarantee that you at least get to overtime.

Under normal circumstances, go for one. But I wish we would've gone for two Saturday night. I didn't want to see that "fight" get extended into OT and I have a hunch Schiano would've gone for 2 and the win if only down by a point.

This was one of those rare games where I didn't look forward to extra football. I wanted to be put out of my misery in 60 minutes.

No obvious answer.

Going for 2 is the higher risk but higher reward too. It basically seals the game if you get it...but if you don't, you open yourself to the possibility of the other team trying to win the game by going for 2. You also make the decision that you  have to convert the 2-pt and not your opponent. 

Going for 1 is the safer bet, because worst-case scenario the opponent can only tie it.

I guess it depends on your risk tolerance, and how much you trust your D to defend a 2-pt conversion vs. your O to convert one. It also depends on how much time is left. In this case, 5 minutes is kind of a lot of time, and it's not clear whether the opponent has 1 or 2 possessions left. Which to me means it's better to err on the side of caution. 

Teams often have a play or two they save for conversions or key goal-line situations. It's often a variation on something they do very well and have an idea that it will work against a particular opponent.

This question is a lot more complex than it seems. Generally, 40% is the figure NFL teams use to gauge 2-point opportunities. But college is higher and with that special play (Oregon, a while back, would use it after its first touchdown, with considerable effectiveness) maybe even 80%.

Underdogs will take more chances. But was Rutgers much of an underdog against this defense?

It's easy to second-guess when a coach takes a chance and fails. Good coaches take their chances and shoulder the blame when they fail, which they will from time to time. Great coaches have a sense for when to take these shots.

We went for 2 in the third OT and did not convert.  If we had gone for 2 when up 7, we likely would not have converted.  Rutgers then went and scored.  If they kicked, we would be back in OT.  It they went for 2, they would have converted and won the game.  Going for one was the correct choice.