I have no problem with the call to go for two. I don't question the character or the guts of these guys or the staff. I just wonder if our players are being put in the best position to win. I really want to rail on some of those 3rd and long calls by the defense.  We're in a good position to make a big stop and we're taking unnecessary chances.

I'm indifferent.  I think maybe we kick it because we definitely had the advantage in the kicking game if we hold them, but I don't fault the effort.  Brass balls.

In this game you can make the case either way.

The momentum swing sets you up for a dramatic win.

On the other hand, I think we had the advantage in the kicking game which gives you a bit of a leg up in the OT.

Last year at North Texas, the call was a bit more obvious due to the weather conditions.

I assume we lined up and went for two. I think it would have been better to fake the kick and go for two. They wouldn't have expected a fake.

One of the things I learned from playing backgammon is that it is often better to try to win quickly than it is to let yourself die slowly.  That is, going for it all on a single good percentage play often gives you a better chance than just letting things drag on and on and on.

This is a good way to explain why the 2-PAT is the optimal strategy without getting into the math.

realize that you have already beaten the odds once to tie at regulation and every successive iteration will present you with the same underdog odds. your likelihood of beating the odds in a repeated game gets smaller and smaller each iteration (overtime period). 

Then consider that to guarantee victory, you are going to have to score a two-point conversion at some point. There is no other strategy that in a repeated game will ensure your victory. College football makes this convenient for us by forcing us to play the optimal strategy (and, alternatively, penalizing the favorite) after the second iteration (third, technically, since regulation was a game as well.)

So if you had a 33% chance to win the game, and you have a 45% chance of successfully completing the 2-PAT, take into account then that your overall odds will be reduced by the percentage of that iteration. Overtimes are non-timed periods so you would have to calculate what that constant modifier would be (what percentage of a game does one overtime period constitute) and the that would be how much your overall expected value would be.

Fortunately the dynamics of football make this even easier to illustrate. I said that to guarantee victory you will at some point have to score a 2-PAT. But what condition creates the decision path for the PAT? You have to score a touchdown, first.

Your 45% (i am making that up, there is an actual number that I looked up for the North Texas game when I explained this the first time because, assuming we and North Texas were even in ability (debate that as you may) we were the road team and thus the edge was with the home team. Anyway, that 45% is a far, far, far higher expected value than the likelihood of scoring a touchdown from the 25 yard line. 

The same rule applies in a regular game situation if you're at the same point on the field. If your likelihood of reaching the end zone is 45%, and say we'll just give Matt Weller the benefit of the doubt and say he will make a field goal from that spot every time, the field goal is worth 2.9 points when compared against the expected value of going for the touchdown on fourth down.

You are helping your team lose by kicking the field goal. Obviously the pure points strategy only applies early in a tied game. The closer you get to the finish, based on the score, you can calculate whether to go for it or to kick. You'd like to think the football coaches would be aware of these basic odds -- a game of strategy and luck demands attention to them, as every good poker player knows the odds of every single decision he or she makes at the table -- but from what I've read they are woefully ignorant of them. One economist made a handy card that explains the odds for all game situations but it didn't get many takers.

Sports pundits argue today over the value of advanced statistical research in baseball over "gut feelings" and "trusting your eyes." But baseball is hundreds of years ahead of football when it comes to making decisions based on expected returns.

Not that you can quantify anxiety, nor reasonably assume an entire team would suffer from it, but the whole point is illustrated there. They lost because they were the underdog and they went to overtime. The anxiety isn't in regards to the overtime period, it's in the circumstances surrounding beating a favored rival. Only the neurotic have anxiety about doing what is expected to happen.

You go to the bathroom, and there is a probability of success and you hit the target and a probability of failure and pissing on the floor. The previous night you had food poisoning and threw up before you made it all the way to the toilet. The next day when you go to use the bathroom, do you have anxiety because of the mess you made the night before? No, because you've successfully hit the target for all of your life that you can remember. You have effectively eliminated failure as an option through the observation of success. But that same probability doesn't exist for when you got sick, because it's never a sure bet that you make it to a toilet in time. 

So sure, you're emptying bodily substances into a toilet, but the rest of the situation is wildly different. In one you're accustomed to success and your confidence pushes the very idea of failure from your mind. The other one, well, that's why after you get sick once you tend to stay real close to that toilet bowl.

No, it was a bigger risk because we were underdogs.

We were underdogs because, among other reasons, we are an inconsistent team offensively.

You guys are thinking too hard about this.

I liked the call to go for two initially, but once Marshall called time out to regroup I would have switched it up and played for OT.  The two teams were sufficiently evenly matched that I don't think Burke's point about underdogs should have weighed much on the decision.  That having been said, I can't fault Frank for going for the win.

The current Sagarin predictor ratings put Marshall at 63.30, and OU at 63.00.  Admittedly that isn't the be-all, end-all, but I do think that the two teams were much more evenly matched than us only winning 1/4th of the time.  Add in our momentum, and our apparent advantage in the kicking game, and I think that a reasonable case could be made that OT was the better bet than a one-play shot at victory. 

That having been said, like I noted earlier, I can't really fault them for going for it.  I just don't think that underdog status should have played much of a role, given the above.

WHO GIVES A FLIP.  WE PLAYED SO POORLY AND STUPIDLY FOR ALMOST ALL OF THE REST OF THE GAME.  IT WAS JUST PURE LUCK THAT WE GOT IN THAT POSITION (COMPLETED THE HAIL MARY).  GAWD, IF WE'D'VE GOTTEN THE TWO, MANY OF YOU WOULD BE THINKING THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PLAYING WELL AND ON OUR WAY TO A GOOD SEASON.

With the preceding penalty bringing us  half the distance to the goal, we were too close for the extra point. Had to go for two.  The whole team was in agreement. if Riley wasn't pushed down (as seen on replay by everyone but the refs) we would have had a fair shot.  Whether or not he would have caught it we will never know.