The math has been clear for so long, and been presented by so many writers, that this topic is essentially beating a dead horse. Late in games, it has always made sense for a team, after scoring a touchdown to cut a lead from 14 to 8 points, should go for two. The trailing team gets two bites at the apple: if it converts, a touchdown now wins the game. If the team fails, they get a second chance to erase that mistake. Only if the odds of missing *both* attempts were higher than the odds of making the first attempt would this strategy fail to make sense.

Yet it never happens. In fact, Brian Billick with the 2001 Ravens was the last coach to go for 2 late in a game after scoring a touchdown to cut the lead to 8 points.

More astonishingly, just once since the 2-point conversion rule was introduced in 1994, has a team ever been trailing by 14 points, scored a touchdown, and then converted a 2-point attempt. Once! And it came by none other than Bill Belichick as coach of the 1994 Cleveland Browns.

Trailing 20-6 in the 4th quarter against the Denver Broncos, the Browns were in a tough spot. Starting quarterback Vinny Testaverde was out with a concussion, leaving Mark Rypien as the team’s hope for a comeback. After a Cleveland touchdown early in the fourth, Rypien hit Derrick Alexander to cut the lead to 20-14.

And that was it. That’s the last time a team ever cut a lead from 14 to 6 points. Which is mind-blowing. But I bring this up today not to rehash old talking points, but to consider the new extra point rule. This makes the math even clearer about going for it, and I think it will also lead to it finally happening. Let’s say a team has a 96% chance of converting an extra point. That means a team has a 92% chance of converting two straight extra points. Down 14, it’s no longer a given that two touchdowns tie the game: you still have to make sure your kicker doesn’t mess up.

Now, let’s say a team has a 38% chance of making a 2-point conversion. This, of course, is quite a bit lower than the roughly 50/50 proposition that going for 2 truly is, but let’s just use this as a base. If a team goes for 2 after scoring the first touchdown, they have a 38% chance of converting and making this the successful play. There is also a 38% chance that the team misses both times (i.e., the odds of two events with a 62% chance of happening occurring both times), and a 24% chance of ending tied after the second touchdown (this is the result of missing the first time, and converting the second).

So a 24% chance of being tied, a 38% chance of winning, and a 38% chance of losing. That’s the breakdown of results if a team has a 38% chance of converting a two-point conversion. Meanwhile, if the team just kicks the extra point, it has a 92% chance of being tied via hitting two extra points, although if the team misses the first kick, they will obviously go for two on the second one. So we’re more looking at a ~94% chance of being tied, and a ~6% chance of losing, with no upside. Is that enough to tip the scales to convince coaches to be more aggressive when scoring a touchdown to cut the lead to 8?

I think it might be. While the variance is obviously much larger in the first option, variance is neither inherently good nor inherently bad given the zero sum game nature of sports. If it helps your win probability, it hurts your opponent’s win probability, and vice-versa. Given that there is now a roughly six percent chance a team can trail by two touchdowns, score two touchdowns, and still be trailing, that may convince some coaches to finally make the right choice in this situation.

Also, I am here to help the unfortunate coach who does follow this advice, misses both two point conversions, and loses the game by two points. When asked why he did such a thing, here is what he should say: