Raise Your Hand If You Love Going for the 2 Point Conversion

[McY]

I am a fan of BYU football, not a coach or paid expert on the game. Nonetheless, what is the deal with going for the 2 point conversion? Has BYU ever converted one, ever? In today's game against WVU, while we can point to many unforced errors that if avoided, would probably have made this a W instead of an L. But, one question mark is the decision to go for 2. By my count, if we had taken the extra point instead (assuming we make it), then we would have had at worst, a tie game at the end, which still gives us a chance. Again, other mistakes cost the game, I'm just skeptical about going for 2 so often. Clearly, when at the end of regulation and two points down after a TD, you go for two. Perhaps other some other scenarios it is advisable to go for two. Today, leaving 3 points in exchange for going for 2 after those TDs was painful to watch.

Perhaps it is a matter of risk tolerance. Based on today and success (or lack thereof) of prior attempts, I would go with being extremely risk averse when it comes to going for two. Reasonable minds may differ. We will never know if the Utah and WV games would have been different had we taken the 1 point instead of dos.

[vancouvercougar]

Yes, BYU has converted a 2 point conversion. 1979 against TAMU

If BYU kicks just one of the extra points, BYU needs only a field goal to win the game.

[McY]

If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

[SenorCougar]

If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

Prior to Arizona, when was the last time BYU made a last second field to win a game? And remember that the kicker that won Arizona game was not even there. Do you really think Almond would have made it?

[McY]

Actually, did BYU go for 2 twice? My bad misstating that.

[BroncoBot]

If only a field goal were needed for the win, then perhaps the play calls at the end of the 4th quarter are different -- no need to get in the endzone for the win. We could speculate about it all day, I guess. I'm just venting, coping, dealing with the pain of loss #3.

Prior to Arizona, when was the last time BYU made a last second field to win a game? And remember that the kicker that won Arizona game was not even there. Do you really think Almond would have made it?

hindsight is 20/20, but I'd love to see almond attempt it...

[mtnradio]

I thought the first time they went for 2 they should have kicked it. The second time was necessary ... but the play call was horrid. I had no problem with the shot at the end zone at the end of the game.

[Mingjai]

My rule of thumb is going for two at the end of the game to win is the right call if you're the road team, you have a tired or inferior defense, or you have a worse kicking game. I was in favor with going for two at the end of the Utah game.

I'm generally against going for two if your only justification is to close within 7 instead of 8--you should wait until you need to go for two to tie. I know people get tired of analysts talking about chasing the points, but today was a classic example of how playing from behind a two-score deficit completely altered BYU's strategy for a whole quarter.

On a side note, BYU needs to work on their two point plays--they are terrible. QB draw, fade pass, end-around run-pass option... Ugh.

[frdbtr]

My rule of thumb is going for two at the end of the game to win is the right call if you're the road team, you have a tired or inferior defense, or you have a worse kicking game. I was in favor with going for two at the end of the Utah game.

I'm generally against going for two if your only justification is to close within 7 instead of 8--you should wait until you need to go for two to tie. I know people get tired of analysts talking about chasing the points, but today was a classic example of how playing from behind a two-score deficit completely altered BYU's strategy for a whole quarter.

On a side note, BYU needs to work on their two point plays--they are terrible. QB draw, fade pass, end-around run-pass option... Ugh.

The fade pass would have worked if Taysom had put the ball in a better spot.

[Ygridiron4ever]

I thought the first time they went for 2 they should have kicked it. The second time was necessary ... but the play call was horrid. I had no problem with the shot at the end zone at the end of the game.

Seems like the second time was necessary only because the first failed attempt.

If BYU didn't "chase points early" (quoting the ESPN commentators), and kick the extra point on touchdowns 2 and 3, then on touchdown #4, they would have had the options to go for two and tie the game late. Going for two early puts undue pressure on the team.

I guess if they made the first attempt it could have given us momentum. But the potential pressure with a fail is greater than the potential momentum with a make, in my mind.