The \"chart\" says to go for 2

[KnuckleStang]

Huge, timely win in front of a homecoming crowd. These guys played their hearts out. Congratulations, Ponies!!!!! I love my Mustangs, and I hope can come up with a similar effort vs. Nevada.

Like many, I was not too sure about Bennett's call to go for 2. I went searching for the chart, because I couldn't believe he did that when he did. Well, whataya know. Looks like the "chart" says if you're up by 11 "late in the game," you indeed should go for two points. So I guess the question is, how "late in the game" did we go for two, cause I can't remember. Was it in the 3rd or the 4th?



http://www.nfl.com/insider/story/6087872

[H-E-B Mustang]

As I recall, there were 10 minutes left in the fourth quarter when we made that touchdown making the score 35 to 24. I think going for two points with so much time left, and with Tulsa's potent offense, was a mistake.

[TacoPony]

please post this chart. and explain who has blessed this chart, so that any coach who uses it is excused for his bad decision

TP

[KnuckleStang]

Click the link above for the chart, Taco.

[TacoPony]

thanks for the link. I hope someone asks Coach B at the next coffee talk, as to whether he has his own chart. I question this situation because I don't see what 13 buys you as opposed to 12.

[Charleston Pony]

I went ballistic sitting here at home listening on the internet when that decision was made. I don't care what "the chart" says. At that point in yesterday's ballgame, getting that one point meant forcing Tulsa to score 2 TDs to beat us, rather than allowing them to get the game to OT with a FG, TD and 2 pt conversion. Those who always manage "by the book" are sometimes burned by that very practice. The chart undoubtedly assumes several more scoring opportunities before games end and getting up 13 at that point means another FG forces the opponent to score 2 TDs and then to be successful converting two 2-pointers, which admittedly is tough. Again, I don't care what the book says. I felt it was important for the Ponies to have that 12 pt cushion because momentum was slipping away at that point.

[KnuckleStang]

Let me be clear about one thing. I didn't like the call either. I guess my point was that if Bennett's an idiot for making that call, than so is the idiot that made the chart. And a lot of coaches use that chart.

Did anybody notice Watkins "revised" his story on the game from the original one posted on the internet last night? The one that's up now (I assume the one that made the paper) is much more positive in tone and celebratory. The first (deleted) version could have been summed up thus: "SMU won in spite of Phil Bennett's incompetence in going for a needless 2-point-conversion. Cedrick Dorsey and Jamey Harper saved Bennett's butt." Almost the entire article was devoted to this play.

"I don't regret going for two, because I think we go by charts on differences of scores," Bennett said, adding that the conversion would have given his team a two-touchdown lead.

Then comes this gem by Kragthorpe:

"I was shocked. I don't know what his [when-to-go-for-two] card says, but I was shocked. I will show you mine right here. If you are already up by 11, you go for one. So I was happy he put us back in the game and gave us a chance to win when we didn't have one."

I don't know about y'all, but Kragthorpe's choice of the words "when you're ALREADY UP BY 11," and the vehemence of his response suggests to me that he may have actually RESENTED Bennett going for 2 more than anything.

If this stuff did appear in the paper this morning, sorry for posting it again. I just thought it was interesting. And it's revealing, I think, of what Watkins was really thinking after the game. He called off the dogs a little.

[Ponymon]

Bennett should rethink the stupid chart! It was obvious that we should have gone for 1 point, which would have required that they score two touchdowns to beat us. We were up by 11 points, which means that a touchdown, two point conversion, and field goal ties you whereas kicking the extra point requires that the other team will have to, at a minimum, score two, yes TWO, touchdowns. What disturbs me is that it appears that Bennett will again go for 2 if this happens again! Personally, I would always go for 1 unless it is in the last 5 minutes of the game. I don't know how many games I have watched where the coach decided to go for 2, which ended up costing them the game, but it has been a majority of the close ones!

[TacoPony]

agreed, I'm upset that a coach would put his decision making in the hands of anything other than his own staff's strategy. is there somewhere a "chart" that says what to do on 3rd and 3... 4th and 1 at the 50... etc etc etc ??? this chart thing is BS, and if Bennett cannot give a better explanation than this, it may show he doesn't have a deep enough strategy.

and by the way, I'm still a Bennett supporter, this is my first criticism

TP

[GoRedGoBlue]

You never ever go for two when there is that much time left, you simply don't know how the rest of the game will play out... now, if there were 4 minutes left and it was a 12 pt lead (i.e., "a TD and two FGs won't beat you if you don't make it" because there isn't enought time for the opposing team to score THREE times), then you go for 2 to make it 14...

But, never ever do you do it when it CAN hurt you (i.e., with an 11 pt lead, a FG and an 8pt TD ties you, as is exactly what happened in this case), therefore you kick the extra point to make it 12.

What is possibly gained by being 13pts up vs. 12?