[Goose]

One thing is that in overtime it is always an advantage to go second because you know what you have to get to at least tie.  If the other team scores a touchdown, then you have four downs to match them.  If, on the other hand, the other team fails to score (say, turns the ball over), you can play more conservatively and play for a field goal.  The team on offense second winds up winning 55% of the time.

Because of this advantage, if the other team scores and gets the extra point, and you score, you know that if you go for the PAT and get it, you will be on offense first and thus disadvantaged (win probability of 45%), plus there is a small probability of missing the PAT.  The probability of converting the 2 is about 43%, so it is about the same either way.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2952...n-overtime

BC

This analysis is even more germane if your team is getting tired and you have no halfway good substitutes available. Stanford's defense really had gone all out to create the 4th and 18. They also stopped the initial 2 pt conversion with a maximum pass rush effort but offsetting fouls gave UCLA another chance. I am not sure Stanford had another defensive stand in them. Apparently Kelly didn't think UCLA had any more gas in the tank either or else I am pretty sure he would expect Stanford's 3 DL with no backups to fold up first. I actually think he made a mistake going for 2 because I think we were about done on defense. However, he may have had better intel on the state of his team and known they were about done too.

[Goose]

One thing is that in overtime it is always an advantage to go second because you know what you have to get to at least tie.  If the other team scores a touchdown, then you have four downs to match them.  If, on the other hand, the other team fails to score (say, turns the ball over), you can play more conservatively and play for a field goal.  The team on offense second winds up winning 55% of the time.

Because of this advantage, if the other team scores and gets the extra point, and you score, you know that if you go for the PAT and get it, you will be on offense first and thus disadvantaged (win probability of 45%), plus there is a small probability of missing the PAT.  The probability of converting the 2 is about 43%, so it is about the same either way.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2952...n-overtime

BC

This analysis is even more germane if your team is getting tired and you have no halfway good substitutes available. Stanford's defense really had gone all out to create the 4th and 18. They also stopped the initial 2 pt conversion with a maximum pass rush effort but offsetting fouls gave UCLA another chance. I am not sure Stanford had another defensive stand in them. Apparently Kelly didn't think UCLA had any more gas in the tank either or else I am pretty sure he would expect Stanford's 3 DL with no backups to fold up first. I actually think he made a mistake going for 2 because I think we were about done on defense. However, he may have had better intel on the state of his team and known they were about done too.