Indiana's 2 point conversion

Donate To GopherHole
P

page0066

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Does anyone know why Indiana went for 2 with 5:33 left in the game? The score was 39 - 35. If they just kick the extra point, they are up by five, and they would have forced us to go for a two point conversion to make it a 3 point game. Instead, they didn't convert on the two point conversion, and all we had to do is kick the extra point to make it a three point game. I don't see what the advantage would have been to being up six instead of five. I think that this was a major blunder by Wilson. If we wouldn't have made the two point conversion to make it a three point game, all they would of had to do is run out the clock and kick a field goal at the end of the game instead of trying to get in the end zone. Am I missing something?
 


I suppose going for two would put them up by 6, which would have preserved the tie if the Gophers scored a TD but missed the extra point. It probably would have made more sense to kick the XP to preserve the opportunity to win on a FG.
 

I think Indiana used a leftover card from Bert.
 

Why'd they do it? Easy, they thought they could make it and demoralize the Gophers in the process. After watching the way they kicked the Gophers down the field who could blame them? Oh, and they MISSED the conversion by a couple of inches.
 


Going to 5 doesn't really accomplish much going to 6 at least opens up some scenarios. About the only thing it changed was them being in a position to force overtime with a field goal as opposed to go for the win but not really sure it would have changed their play calling much in that situation.
 

I really don't think it had much of an effect on the game. If they go for one, they're up five. Williams scores, putting the Gophers up by one at that point. There's no way the Gophers go for one after that. I'd put the odds of the Gophers converting the 2-point conversion at about 75%, given how bad Indiana's defense was for most of the day.
 

The scenarios:

IU gets zero, leads by four
Gophers get two field goals, lead by two. IU loses or wins with field goal.
Gophers get TD and miss the try (kick), lead by two. IU loses or wins with field goal.
Gophers score a TD and make the try (kick), lead by three. IU loses or gets OT with field goal.
IU gets one, leads by five
Gophers get two field goals, lead by one. IU loses or wins with field goal.
Gophers get TD and miss the try (pass), lead by one. IU loses or wins with field goal.
Gophers score a TD and make the try (pass), lead by three. IU loses or gets OT with field goal.
IU gets two, leads by six
Gophers get two field goals, score is tied. IU gets OT or wins with field goal.
Gophers get TD and miss the try (kick), score is tied. IU gets OT or wins with field goal.
Gophers score a TD and make the try (kick), lead by one. IU loses or wins with field goal.

You make a good point. There doesn't seem to be a ton of upside in the third scenario unless the Gophers kick two field goals. I this game with that much time left and these two teams with their relative strengths and weaknesses, that would have been unlikely. I can see why the card would suggest going for two however.
 

There is almost no logical upside to going for two in that scenario so late in the game. I was confused at the time and I am even more grateful currently. We would have lost that game IMO. They wouldn't be running risky swing passes if all they had to do was center the ball and kick the short game-winning field goal. One of the dumbest coaching decisions I have ever seen. I'll take the win. Seems like these close ones are finally going in our favor. Ski-U-Mah!
 



Iceland12 said:
Why'd they do it? Easy, they thought they could make it and demoralize the Gophers in the process. After watching the way they kicked the Gophers down the field who could blame them? Oh, and they MISSED the conversion by a couple of inches.
Click to expand...

So you think it was a good call? This was a bad call - the only upside is if we miss the XP on our next TD. The downside is - well, exactly what happened.

Hill's fumble recovery and Maxx's 50-yd TD is what will be remembered here, but if the D doesn't stop even 1 of those 2-pt conversions then IN is running at the end there - not passing and the outcome is different.

Wrong decision to go for it, OP is right, but what isn't talked about enough is our D stopping them both times.
 

Spoofin said:
So you think it was a good call? This was a bad call - the only upside is if we miss the XP on our next TD. The downside is - well, exactly what happened.

Hill's fumble recovery and Maxx's 50-yd TD is what will be remembered here, but if the D doesn't stop even 1 of those 2-pt conversions then IN is running at the end there - not passing and the outcome is different.

Wrong decision to go for it, OP is right, but what isn't talked about enough is our D stopping them both times.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, though, had they made either of those two conversions, the Gophers themselves likely would have went for 2 on the Williams TD, with a chance to go up by 3.
 

Spoofin said:
So you think it was a good call? This was a bad call - the only upside is if we miss the XP on our next TD. The downside is - well, exactly what happened.

Hill's fumble recovery and Maxx's 50-yd TD is what will be remembered here, but if the D doesn't stop even 1 of those 2-pt conversions then IN is running at the end there - not passing and the outcome is different.

Wrong decision to go for it, OP is right, but what isn't talked about enough is our D stopping them both times.
Click to expand...

Nope, just think it was easy to see why they went for it, which was the question right, or are you just spoofing?
 

Iceland12 said:
Nope, just think it was easy to see why they went for it, which was the question right, or are you just spoofing?
Click to expand...

"Does anyone know why Indiana went for 2 with 5:33 left in the game?"
 



I'm glad they went for 2 because they wouldn't have called that lateral play that ended the game down the stretch... :)
 

I agree with whichever poster said Wilson must have been using Bielema's card. I'd hate to go to the racetrack with Wison.

You can't predicate your decision on what someone else may do. That's my beef on Kill's decision to go for the fake punt at the point in the game at which we did. Assess the situation and make the appropriate play. The Hoosiers going for two the first time wasn't that bright either. Too much game left to be making that decision.

If Wilson goes for one on either of those TDs and we probably lose the game by one point.
 

Indiana's fans are bitching about the decision, but it was the right call by their coaches. At that point they're up 4, the teams are trading TDs, and we get the ball next. If Indiana kicks the XP (up 5) then we would go back ahead by 1 with a TD and probably try a 2 pt conversion to go up 3. Indiana probably felt they had a better chance of MAKING their own 2PC than stopping us on one. If Indiana makes the 2PC, then if we score again we'd be up only 1 and a FG wins it for IU.

Moreover, kicking the XP and going up 5 also leads them vulnerable to 2 FGs to lose the game.

Besides, in the second half how many plays did we hold them to less than 3 yards. The chances of them making a 2PC probably were far greater than 50%.
 

50PoundHead said:
If Wilson goes for one on either of those TDs and we probably lose the game by one point.
Click to expand...

No, it means we go for a 2 pt conversion after the Maxx TD and we would've been up by either 1 or 3, we don't know. Personally, I like our chances a lot running the read option at the 3 yard line against IU.
 

page0066 said:
Does anyone know why Indiana went for 2 with 5:33 left in the game? The score was 39 - 35. If they just kick the extra point, they are up by five, and they would have forced us to go for a two point conversion to make it a 3 point game. Instead, they didn't convert on the two point conversion, and all we had to do is kick the extra point to make it a three point game. I don't see what the advantage would have been to being up six instead of five. I think that this was a major blunder by Wilson. If we wouldn't have made the two point conversion to make it a three point game, all they would of had to do is run out the clock and kick a field goal at the end of the game instead of trying to get in the end zone. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

On going for two twice in the game:

"We had talked about different scenarios like that. Our thought was that if we kick it and make it a five point lead, they could kick two field goals and win. If we made the two and were put up six, we knew that if they got two field goals we would be tied and if they scored a TD we would be tied as well. They would still have to kick an extra point to go ahead if they scored and we have blocked several kicks this year. We almost got in the end-zone on that two-point conversion with Nate(Sudfeld) scrambling. Maybe we were being a little bit over-aggressive in hindsight."
 

WanderingGopher said:
No, it means we go for a 2 pt conversion after the Maxx TD and we would've been up by either 1 or 3, we don't know. Personally, I like our chances a lot running the read option at the 3 yard line against IU.
Click to expand...

But liking one's chances and succeeding are two different things. Wilson kicks XPs after both those TDs and Indiana probably wins. Going for two the first time was probably as bad a mistake as the second decision. It was too early and it hamstrung his later decisions.

Again, you don't predicate your decisions on what might happen. Expect two FGs from us at that point in the game? That would take two possessions, two considerably well-executed drives, and two successfully kicked FGs. It could be done, but that's a lot of action late.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom