[cp9]

sorry but none of this makes any sense.

these are the assumptions they are attempting to debunk:

- All 2-point conversions are equally likely to succeed.

I have seen no evidence that all 2-point conversions *aren't* equally likely to succeed, and even if they were two bites at that apple gives you better odds than just one

- You will stop the other team from scoring.

regardless of whether you choose to go for it or kick the XP, you still have to stop your opponent on their subsequent drive. if they do so much as kick a FG it's game over already, so it doesn't matter.

- You will get a touchdown on the subsequent drive.

you have to score a TD or the debate doesn't matter so it's irrelevant to this argument

- The clock expires after that.

again we have to assume we are preventing the opponent from scoring any additional points because the debate makes no sense without that caveat

- There are even odds of winning in overtime.

getting to OT in this scenario is the fallback, while it's the best outcome of just kicking the XP twice in a row

[cp9]

> even if they were two bites at that apple gives you better odds than just one

(assuming you want to win in regulation which presumably you do because OT is inherent chaotic)

> getting to OT in this scenario is the fallback

I meant to say "likely fallback"

[bluedino]

> I have seen no evidence that all 2-point conversions aren't equally likely to succeed

Pass plays are less likely to convert than run plays. The conversion rates aren't even equal between teams.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/two-point-conversion-p...

[aidenn0]

Surely implicit in the statement is "all 2-point conversions in the 4th quarter by the same team" since we are comparing 3 possible 2-point conversions in the 4th quarter by the same team. (2pt conversion when down by 8, 2pt conversion when down by 2, 2pt conversion when down by 1).

[cp9]

> The conversion rates aren't even equal between teams

yes but in this instance we are considering the same team