Harsin's approach to 2-point conversion

[aubiefifty 18,237]

What's Auburn football coach Bryan Harsin's approach to 2-point conversion attempts?

Bennett Durando, Montgomery Advertiser

Wed, November 17, 2021, 4:27 PM

 

 

AUBURN — Hope wasn't completely lost when Auburn football scored with 3:37 remaining against Mississippi State last week. It snapped a 40-0 run by the Bulldogs and set up an extra point that would cut Auburn's deficit to 43-35 — a one-possession game.

But at some point, a 2-point conversion would be required if Auburn wanted to catch Mississippi State. Coach Bryan Harsin elected to go for it after the first touchdown.

An injured Bo Nix threw an interception on the attempt, and Auburn remained two scores behind. The final was 43-34. On one hand, that decision stung extra after Mississippi State missed a field goal. Auburn could've had possession in an eight-point game with a chance to tie. On the other, missing the 2-point conversion would likely cost the game no matter when it was attempted. So was it the right call to go for it early?

"The old chart question," Harsin called it Wednesday. "Yes, there is a chart that everybody in America uses (to determine when to go for two). I think that tends to be made fun of when it doesn't work out. But everybody has the same one. It's pretty standard."

 

The decision against Mississippi State was the first time of Harsin's Auburn tenure that he has been scrutinized for a 2-point decision. But in that specific scenario, strategic opinions differ even among experts.

Here's what Ryan Paganetti, a former Philadelphia Eagles assistant coach who specialized in analytics and game management, had to say in a message to the Advertiser:

"There has been a lot of discussion of why 'in theory' it makes sense to go for (two) when down (nine) late (in the game) because you gain information on if you are going to succeed on the 2-point conversion earlier and can at least adjust your strategy going forward if you do or don’t get it. For example, if you don’t get it, you are almost certain to want to kick onside. But if you do get it, you’d be more likely to kick deep.

"Despite it sounding right in theory, the win probability difference between down (nine) and down (eight) has been so large that my suggestion would be to kick the extra point. There may be other factors at play where your team continues to play really hard when down (eight) as opposed to almost giving up, down (nine)."

Paganetti also pointed out that college 2-point conversion success rates are lower than in the NFL, which can factor into the "when" question in a number of ways, depending on how coaches and analysts view it.

AUBURN FOOTBALL: For cornerback Jaylin Simpson, clutch interception of Corral was validation after injuries

While Paganetti would've suggested Auburn kick instead of chasing the two points early in that spot, Football Outsiders founder and statistician Aaron Schatz was on the same page as Harsin.

"My feeling is that you want the most information as soon as possible," Schatz wrote in a message to the Advertiser. "You know you are going to have to make a 2-point conversion to tie. So you might as well try it first. If you miss it, you know you have to try to do the almost-impossible and score two more times.

"If you try the 2-point conversion after the second touchdown and you don't get it, the game is also over and you also lose. But you don't have the opportunity to TRY to score twice more."

It's clear the down-nine situation is one of the more nuanced debates in the go-for-it-or-kick debate. Either way, Harsin cited the chart, but he elaborated that a coach needs to consider other elements when it comes to his general decision-making philosophy.

"You know if you have to go for two and what that's going to put you down by or up by. And then really it comes down to, just for us, if you've got momentum," Harsin said. "Are you going to do it at the end of the last drive when you have to, or are you going to do it during a drive where you can? That's really what it comes down to. I think it's a big swing in momentum. And that is a determination in the game. So you see teams do it: They'll go for it earlier, they'll go for it later.

QUARTERBACK: Bryan Harsin: Auburn football will start TJ Finley after Bo Nix's season-ending surgery

"And also, you have player availability. You have, just as far as the play selection, did you use it before? Do you need to come up with something different? There's a lot of different things that come up in the game, so it's not just one standard process I think everybody uses from that standpoint — other than, there's a chart that people look at, or a guy on the sideline has, that says you should go for two if you're down by this or up by this. And then you get to make that decision as a coach."

This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: How Auburn football coach Bryan Harsin approaches 2-point conversions

[Mikey 16,781]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

"My feeling is that you want the most information as soon as possible," Schatz wrote in a message to the Advertiser. "You know you are going to have to make a 2-point conversion to tie. So you might as well try it first. If you miss it, you know you have to try to do the almost-impossible and score two more times.

"If you try the 2-point conversion after the second touchdown and you don't get it, the game is also over and you also lose. But you don't have the opportunity to TRY to score twice more."

This is exactly why Harsin's decision was the correct call.

[oracle79 3,569]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

Despite it sounding right in theory, the win probability difference between down (nine) and down (eight) has been so large that my suggestion would be to kick the extra point. There may be other factors at play where your team continues to play really hard when down (eight) as opposed to almost giving up, down (nine)."

And this is why it was exactly the wrong decision.

[TigerPAC 1,021]

Already hashed this but my biggest question now is....”and also you have player availability...”.   Well, why did we call a rollout w an injured Qb?

[woodford 3,732]

Utter failure of the defensive side of the ball. I still can’t wrap my head around how you give up 40 unanswered points at home. 

[gr82be 14,911]

I know I'm pointing out the obvious but with us up 28-3, the fact that we even had to concern ourselves with playing catch up is hard to grasp. So many things wrong with that game. I still disagree with the chart for this circumstance. 

[jj3jordan 2,171]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

This is exactly why Harsin's decision was the correct call.

Yeah, no.  If you kick the PAT, you kick deep and hold. Your kicker does not end up with a torn ACL.  The fallacy in Schatz theory is that with 3:00 min or so that the ONLY time you will score and fail the two point conversion will be when the clock has run out.  If you score with seconds left, you kick the onside kick and try to get to a field goal.  Successfully accomplishing ONE onside kick, getting two first downs, and kicking a game winner is vastly more likely than TWO successful onside kicks.  Finding out information?  Yeah you find out information alright. You find out that you just lost the game.  It is somewhat akin to not being able to win the Masters on thursday, but you can sure as heck lose it.

[Mikey 16,781]

5 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Your kicker does not end up with a torn ACL.

A torn ACL can happen to anybody, any time. Harsin's call was the correct one, for the reasons quoted above. Like many plays, had it worked he'd have been "genuis". Had he waited until another score, went for two and not made it, he'd have been "idiot."

[woodford 3,732]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Yeah, no.  If you kick the PAT, you kick deep and hold. 

Except that wasn’t a possibility last Saturday. When Auburn kicked deep MSU would just March 75 yards down the field and score. 
 

The 2 pt conversion is just a side show in the meltdown. He should be asked nothing but questions about the most embarrassing defensive performance in school history given the circumstances. 

[Sizzle 3,948]

20 hours ago, woodford said:

Utter failure of the defensive side of the ball. I still can’t wrap my head around how you give up 40 unanswered points at home. 

Big time failure by the defense but our 2nd half offense is an utter failure too. Especially since our HC is an offensive coach these past few games in the 2nd half have been ugly offensively 

[woodford 3,732]

49 minutes ago, Sizzle said:

Big time failure by the defense but our 2nd half offense is an utter failure too. Especially since our HC is an offensive coach these past few games in the 2nd half have been ugly offensively 

I agree with that. Our OL isn’t that good so that really limits us but yeah they gotta be able to work some magic sometimes. 

[ArgoEagle 2,051]

I was fine with the decision, just hated the play call. You already have a small window of pass plays that will work from the 3 YD. Line bc of the short field. When you do a straight roll out to one side of the field, you cut the already shortened field in half, and you cut your success chances in half.

[steeleagle 2,945]

2 hours ago, ArgoEagle said:

I was fine with the decision, just hated the play call. You already have a small window of pass plays that will work from the 3 YD. Line bc of the short field. When you do a straight roll out to one side of the field, you cut the already shortened field in half, and you cut your success chances in half.

That was my problem. Especially with a short window and a lot of congestion. Now if you want to try the Lutzie play, then I'm all for it.

I had no problem either way whether we went for 2 early or not. At that point, you at least know what your odds are towards the end of the game if you make it or not. AND we were at home...

But all this back and forth didn't really cause us to lose. We know what lost this for us....lack lf defensive stops in 2nd half, and no offensive pressure put back on MSU, until it was almost too late when we scored.

[Hank2020 3,356]

1 hour ago, steeleagle said:

That was my problem. Especially with a short window and a lot of congestion. Now if you want to try the Lutzie play, then I'm all for it.

I had no problem either way whether we went for 2 early or not. At that point, you at least know what your odds are towards the end of the game if you make it or not. AND we were at home...

But all this back and forth didn't really cause us to lose. We know what lost this for us....lack lf defensive stops in 2nd half, and no offensive pressure put back on MSU, until it was almost too late when we scored.

I don’t think Lutzie play would work now as active as our TEs are.

[Didba 5,510]

On 11/18/2021 at 10:51 AM, woodford said:

Utter failure of the defensive side of the ball. I still can’t wrap my head around how you give up 40 unanswered points at home. 

Its pretty simple to wrap your head around playing an offense putting up 400 yards a game whose offensive strength plays directly into your defense's biggest weakness whilst playing a hurt QB that can't throw off his back foot for 1 and a half quarters.

[ArgoEagle 2,051]

7 hours ago, steeleagle said:

That was my problem. Especially with a short window and a lot of congestion. Now if you want to try the Lutzie play, then I'm all for it.

I had no problem either way whether we went for 2 early or not. At that point, you at least know what your odds are towards the end of the game if you make it or not. AND we were at home...

But all this back and forth didn't really cause us to lose. We know what lost this for us....lack lf defensive stops in 2nd half, and no offensive pressure put back on MSU, until it was almost too late when we scored.

Yeah, our run game was trash in the 2nd half, Bo got happy feet again.

And that 40 unanswered points was inexcusable. If your game plan on D is clearly not working and you're getting owned, you have to attempt to make adjustments. If your adjustments fail then ok. Tip your hat. But not even trying something different is grounds for termination for Mason IMO.