Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The result isn’t affecting my opinion.  I was listening on the radio while driving and as soon as they said UNC was going for 2 I told my wife (who didn’t care), “Just kick the XP, too much time left.”  It’s risk/reward.  If UNC gets the 2 point conversion I don’t know what their win probability jumps up to but it isn’t as high as their loss probability if they fail.  Like I mentioned earlier, getting the 2 doesn’t guarantee the win but missing it basically guarantees a loss because at that point you are pinning your hopes on an onside kick and we know the success rate for that isn’t very good.

The more time the opposing team has to get the ball back and kick a GW FG the worse it makes the decision.  With 1:14 left that is still too much time.  If a team is going to do that they should do it when the game is going to hinge on that one play.  The win probability equals (or basically equals) the loss probability.  WVU’s decision last year to go for 2 against Texas with 16 seconds left makes much more sense than UNC doing the same thing with 1:14 left.

That seems like short term thinking.

The goal is to win the game. The idea that after you miss, the probability is lower implies there's value in a better win probability with 1:00. But there probably isn't a ton unless you're talking about delaying things. 

The time part is also immaterial. "The more time the opposing team has to get the ball back and kick a GW FG the worse it makes the decision." This doesn't make sense. If UNC is up 1, Clemson's last drive is exactly the same. It's just doing it under duress rather than in a more relaxed scenario. 

UNC played to win, as a 27-point underdog. They said high-risk, high-reward is a better play. They didn't make it, and lost as was expected. Such is life.

(Wisconsin's mighty six-loss Rose Bowl team had a moment like that. Their defense had held 12-0 OSU to 211 yards. Their QB strung together a marvelous drive to get the TD to make it 14-13. They played safe, OSU O got 25 in 4 plays. A bad QB-led offense couldn't get more than 4 yards and it was done)

In a final drive, Clemson trailing would have four downs immediately versus being tied.  If they start at their 25, if tied, they punt if they are 3 and out, if behind they have to go for it on fourth down no matter what.  They might take a holding penalty and end up 4th and 5 at their own 30, if they are tied, the punt the ball, if behind they go for it.

As they reach midfield, the calculus shifts to near even, but again they might end up 4th and 20 at the 50 with 20 seconds left.  They punt, if tied.

I like the signal he sent to his players, in retrospect I would have gone for one.

I’m all for going for it if the opponent really doesn’t have enough time to respond.  If one play is all that separates you from a win or a loss then, yeah, go for 2.  That wasn’t the case yesterday.

Even if UNC had gotten the 2 and held Clemson I would have said the play there was to kick the XP.

Ehhh, can we stop with the silly, IMPRECISE percentages being thrown out here??  A pro football win probability thing or numbers pulled out of your butt aren't helping the conversation.



I don't think many of you know how win probability works.  NO, if UNC kicks the XP and stops Clemson from scoring and makes it to OT, their win probability doesn't go to 50% or probably anything close to 50%.  So get that out of your head. 


It has to do with expectation vs what's happened and how that works.  Clemson came into the game as a heavy favorite - a 94.1% chance to win (which they did).  They're still a heavy favorite if the teams go to OT, because they're tied.  I'm not going to pretend it's still 94%, but it's 60-70%, which means UNC has a 60-70% chance of losing in OT (yes, pulled from my butt, but actually based on something - Clemson's worst win% during the game when they were tied was 68%).  Looking it up, teams get the 2-pt conversion ~40% of the time.  So one could argue the odds are similar for UNC either way.  Now, do you try the one-play, anything-can-happen route or risk Clemson's depth coming into play in overtime and possibly multiple OTs?  Or risk Clemson's funky day being righted and they start curb-stomping you as they were supposed to?


You take the one-play shot.  You stop tempting fate and try to steal the win. 


This might help - think of a baseball player who underachieves the first half of the season.  He's a career .280 hitter and in his prime, but at the all-star break, he's only hitting .240.  Now, you know about regression to the mean, you know the law of averages points to him being truly better than that, and he is.  BUT - HE IS NOT GOING TO HIT SO WELL THE 2ND HALF OF THE SEASON THAT HE GETS HIS AVERAGE UP TO .280 FOR THE SEASON.  He is likely to hit .280 for the rest of the season, thus bringing it up from .240, but only to around .260 by the end of the season. 


For this one game, UNC battled Clemson equally, but this doesn't magically undo the discrepancy between the teams when they kicked off to start the game.  Clemson still has all those same advantages they did when the game started and they had a 94.1% chance of winning. 

Hell, look at is as a pure sample-size problem and think logically:  
1 play is the smallest sample size you can have.  
The smaller the sample size, the more wonky your date is.
Clemson is a much better team than UNC.



So for UNC to have its best chance at winning, it wants the smallest possible data set (of plays) to determine the outcome of the game - because UNC beating Clemson is the wonky outcome in this scenario.  The more plays the game takes, the less wonky an outcome you're likely to produce.  OT takes at least 8 plays, and very probably more, perhaps many more.



One play, for a win, as the underdog, you do it  Every time, you do it.  

Ehhh, can we stop with the silly, IMPRECISE percentages being thrown out here??  A pro football win probability thing or numbers pulled out of your butt aren't helping the conversation.

Can you stop with your silly, IMPRECISE assertions that your POV tops that of others who cherry pick their arguement like you do yours.You obviously don't know how things would have turned out if UNC goes for the tie.We obviously know how things turned out when they didn't.See how that works.There was nothing in Clemsons body of work yesterday afternoon that guaranteed go ahead or winning.No one is blasting Mack Brown's decision just suggesting they would have tried a different plan of attack.It's all right to have conlicting views with out condescending drivel