When to go for two in Football

It baffles me how so many teams just don't get when and when not to go for the two-point conversion. I've already pulled out my hair twice this season first during the Notre Dame vs. Clemson game, then on Sunday when the Browns took on the Broncos. Both instances, teams went for two too early, and it cost them in the end.

Heck, an entire Super Bowl was lost because John Fox chased the two-point conversion too early.

I get it, some teams have a philosophy of always going for two. This post isn't directed towards them. Oregon under Chip Kelly, and earlier this year the Steelers, always tried for the two-point conversion, from the first touchdown to the last. I have no beef with coaches employing a consistent, aggressive philosophy even though I wouldn't.

My philosophy is simple: Never go for two unless it's absolutely necessary. And in my eyes there are only five scenarios where I'd go for the two as opposed to taking the one.

1.) The conversion would tie the game. Under this scenario, a team scored a touchdown and is now within two points of a tie, let's say 21-19. One point doesn't help much, even if the team with 21 scores a field goal, the chasing team still needs a touchdown. And in the fourth quarter possessions are limited, so the losing team can ill-afford to give up a touchdown either way.

Note that if the team chases this point too early (before the fourth quarter), it may find itself in a two-score situation late (so 28-19). Which gets back to not going for the two until it's absolutely necessary.

2.) The conversion would bring the game to within a field goal. Note, field goal, not one score. More on that in a second. But if a team scores, point pending, and is down say 21-16, a two point try would cut that deficit to three, which eases the burden on the two-minute drill.

I would not go for two if the score was only 21-9 (as it was in the Notre Dame/Clemson game). Yes, 21-11 brings the score within a field goal, but the chasing team still needs another touchdown. So it doesn't have to chase the point right then and there. And, more importantly, at 21-10 if the chasing team holds the winning team to a field goal (as the Irish did against the Tigers), it then doesn't need a two-point conversion at all.

Notre Dame chased the point at 21-9, missed it, forced a field goal and ended up needing the two when it cut the lead down to 24-22 late in the fourth quarter. Notre Dame missed the conversion again and lost. Had it kicked the point initially, it likely would have played overtime.

3.) The conversion would push the lead to a field goal. Similar to point No. 2, the chasing team scores and takes a one point lead (22-21) in this scenario, a two-point lead is meaningless whereas a three-point lead shields the team from losing on a last-second field goal. Thus, late in the game, it's very necessary to try for two.

This is the one scenario where my absolutely necessary rule has some latitude. Playing out the rest of the game, the only scenario where a 23-21 lead is better than a 24-21 lead is if there is enough time to force the opposing team into two field goals (so 27-23 instead of 27-22 or 24). This way the chasing team would not need a two to push its lead to three (30-27).

But one could make the argument that it's better to take the chance in being down 27-24 and only need a field goal than be down 27-23 and still need a touchdown late. So I'd probably still try the two if it were the third quarter, but probably not chase the point if it were the first half.

4.) The conversion would push the lead to seven. Team takes the lead at 25-20 point pending, there is little advantage to a six-point lead late in the game. The team has to insulate itself from a touchdown and it's a no-brainier to make sure the opposing team can't win on an extra point kick.

However, there is no point in trying for two if it doesn't push the lead to seven, as Cleveland learned against Denver on Sunday. The Browns scored and went up 20-16 point pending with 8:07 to play in the fourth. They decided to try for two. Why? I have no clue. A 22-16 lead only insulates them from a missed PAT, and even with the new rules the conversion rate is 94 percent.

Did they think they'd hold the Broncos to two field goals with 8:07 left? The defense was playing well, but it's Peyton Manning. And Manning's eventually going to do what Manning does best. On the next offensive snap he found Emmanuel Sanders for a 75-yard touchdown. Denver goes up 23-20. You see where this is going. Had Cleveland taken the PAT, it would be down 22-21 and had forced the Broncos to go for two, keeping the pressure on the opposition to take the two-point risk. If Denver fails, the Browns could have walked off with its regulation field goal.

The Browns will never know what would have happened, but they did force overtime with a field goal at the end of regulation. Cleveland lost 26-23 on a field goal, but had it taken the PAT, it would have at least increased its chances of winning by keeping the pressure to go for two on its opponent.

5.) The conversion would more than likely win the game. I love it when a team scores, pulls within one and lines up for the two, putting all the chips on the table. This only really occurs when a team scores a touchdown within the final 30 seconds, maybe minute, of the game. It's essentially a walk-off conversion, and since overtime in both college and the pros can be fluky, I have no problem with coaches choosing to take control of their own destiny and decide the game on their terms.