Going for 2 in the Missou/Nevada game

Going for 2 in the Missou/Nevada game Isn't this a little early to be chasing 2 points? For sure I disagree with Missou going for it in the 1st half (although I have Nev +7') but then Nevada seemingly compounds the issue. Thoughts?

I'd put it in about the same category as the stupidity we saw at the end of the half.

Totally agree. Nevada going for 2 on TD at beginning of 2H makes no sense IMO.

The whole card detailing in what quarter you start going for two is really based on how many more scores you expect are left in the game. So, it's even more redicilous to go for two in the 2nd quarter of a game expecting 8 touchdowns. This was pretty dumb. And then Nevada uses a timeout on a 2 point conversion attempt (to cut it to 10 rather than 11) instead of using it on defense. Hall of fame coaching indeed.

ANNOUNCER; "We've seen some time-outs called at some...er..unique times in the game..." translation; this coach is a friggin maroon. Between the 2 point trys and the inefficient use of time-outs alone, Nev coach comes off looking really dumb.

I would say going for 2 makes sense when it puts you on a key number, IF your conversion percentage is at or near 50%, and you're late enough in the ball game when there won't be much more scoring. I get sick of those idiot announcers saying "don't do it until the 4th quarter"; obviously it's never that simple.

There's no chart anywhere I believe that justifies a two point conversion in the first half, and especially for a team that's winning. I don't have the charts with me, as I'm on the road, but I've seen them enough to know that simply isn't smart. And taking a time out to put yourself down by 10 when you can simply go for two after the next TD since you only will need one anyway to have any chance to tie, is beyond explanation. Every coach, from pee wee up knows, make that should know that a time-out on offense saves you 10-15 or so seconds, a time-out on defense saves you 35 or so seconds and a time-out after a TD saves you 0 seconds. Or, more properly put, a time-out after a TD when you're trailing costs you 30 seconds or so. I think in college, if you are out of time-outs on defense and it's first down, you need at least 1:40 left to even have any chance of running another offensive play. WTF were they discussing anyway? Just kick the fucking extra-point stupid. Gimme the clipboard, I could do a better job.

Agreed [QUOTE=mcowboy;3601]I would say going for 2 makes sense when it puts you on a key number, IF your conversion percentage is at or near 50%, and you're late enough in the ball game when there won't be much more scoring. I get sick of those idiot announcers saying "don't do it until the 4th quarter"; obviously it's never that simple.[/QUOTE] 2:30 ish left, before the last conversion; time-out??? if you do have a chance to come back you might need em, huh? I thought they went easy on him, there.

So if idiot BJ players are wise enough to buy a $1.99 "decision card" to tell them the mathematically correct choice to make, can't high level college football coaches do the same thing for 2 pt conversions?? Seriously, I may mail one to all of the college coaches. It just amazes me how they cannot understand very, very simple math. They work at a university for Christ sake! Why does the mathematics department not speak up!! :)

when you add there second half time outs with there first half it becomes something totally unacceptable. I think coach Ault will be the first to admit. The way you practice is how your going to play. You have to be fluid and direct, get in and out of the huddle, young qbs are following in love with time outs.