Kicking converts?

[Wobbler]

We need to stop doing this.

Very late in the game, when the point would tie the game or give us the lead, fine. But for the first 58 minutes of the game I don't think it makes sense. The data are out, and it demonstrates that two point converts are more productive. Using the league numbers instead of ours (because our kicker hasn't played much and to get more data), we find:

Two point converts are succeeding 69% of the time, therefore producing 1.38 points per attempt. Single point kicks are succeeding at 84%, therefore yielding 0.84 points per attempt.

A 0.5 point per attempt differential isn't a big deal (we score 2.6 TDs/game, so we're talking about 1.3 points per game), but I'll take those points. And I think it goes without saying that two point convert attempts are more fun to watch.

[paulwoods13]

Good analysis and I tend to agree.

[AngeloV]

I've been on this bandwagon since the new rule was announced.

[Ron]

League wide % means nothing. What is the Argo % of successful 2 point converts?

[ArgoRavi]

My feeling all along is that I would go for 2 every time. If you are successful on even 50% - and you should be able to score from the 3 yard line at that rate at a minimum - then you come out no worse off than going for 1 each time. The only team who seems to be going with something close to this approach is Calgary.

[shayman]

I remember hearing about a high school team, or maybe college, where the coach refused to kick, ever (except for onside kickoffs.) Always go for 2. Never kick a field goal. Never punt, always go for it. Always an onside kick. Apparently it was pretty successful but I could understand the reluctance of old-school coaches to try this.

You'd think the numbers Wobbler quotes would be enough to persuade coaches.

[Tobythor]

I remember hearing about a high school team, or maybe college, where the coach refused to kick, ever (except for onside kickoffs.) Always go for 2. Never kick a field goal. Never punt, always go for it. Always an onside kick. Apparently it was pretty successful but I could understand the reluctance of old-school coaches to try this.

You'd think the numbers Wobbler quotes would be enough to persuade coaches.

I was just thinking about this high school program while reading this thread too. I've heard them mentioned in the media a few times over the years and I believe they have won a few State championships with this strategy. I recently heard that they have incorporated some Rugby strategies into their offence which as a Rugby player I would love to see. I used to love to watch the old Grey Cups that CBC would show the week of the Grey Cup because teams in the 40s or 50s (?) would still use the lateral in a lot of their offensive plays or during kick or punt returns. I would be nice to see a team completely out of the playoff picture try some of these strategies at the end of the season. Why not try to never allow the other team to get possession of the ball?

[shayman]

Sometimes I fantasize about what it would be like if a team were really, really good at onside kicks.

[PullTogether73]

My feeling all along is that I would go for 2 every time. If you are successful on even 50% - and you should be able to score from the 3 yard line at that rate at a minimum - then you come out no worse off than going for 1 each time. The only team who seems to be going with something close to this approach is Calgary.

Disagree.
Should be situation driven.
If a 1 point convert puts your team ahead by 4 or 8 points in the 4th quarter, you take the higher odds of success and kick for 1 point and put the opposition in a position to have to score twice. Conversely, if a 2 point convert does the same as above, you go for 2.

Earlier in the game, I don't think it really matters.