This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

That one could have worked out though. by rockmcd

If you assume that every 2 point conversion attempt is going to fail, then obviously every 2 point conversion attempt is going to be dumb.

In the Clemson game, they were down 21-3 before scoring a TD with 14:13 left in the game, making it 21-9 pending the conversion attempt. At that point there were a lot of potential outcomes. One such outcome was that if they converted the 2-pt conversion with 14:13 left, then they would have only needed a 1-pt conversion at the end of the game to win the game outright.

Another way to look at it is this way. Knowing in hindsight that Clemson kicked a FG later in that game and assuming you'll make all your kicks (not completely certain in a rainstorm but let's go with this for sake of argument), Kelly had 4 different potential outcomes with respect to 2-point conversions:

(a) Go for 2 the first time and convert - Win the game in regulation.
(b) Don't attempt it the first time - Go to overtime and 50% chance to win.
(c) Fail to convert the first time, succeed the 2nd time - Go to overtime and 50% chance to win.
(d) Fail to convert 2 times in a row - Lose the game in regulation.

Since (b) and (c) give you the same result, the decision comes down to which is more likely: Going 1-for-1, or going 0-for-2? If my math is correct, the breakeven point is whether your average successful conversion rate is 38%. Going for it gives you a 38% chance of winning (by converting the first time), and it gives you a 38% chance of losing [62% chance they fail the first time, multiplied by 62% chance they fail the 2nd time = 38% chance they fail both times]. So if they're going to convert it more than 38% of the time on average, then Kelly made the right decision against Clemson.

As for the 2014 Northwestern game, that was just plain dumb.