This article was in the NY Times and I thought it was interesting: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region Sorry I can't cut and paste it here, but hopefully you can read it via the link. It points out how most NFL teams when faced with the choice to kick the PAT for the tie at the end of the game, or go for two to win almost 90% of the times over a 10 year period the teams chose to go for the tie. But only 40% of the time did that team ultimately win - IOW, 60% of the time the team that went for the tie lost in OT. It seems that coaches tend to view the situation myopically: they base their decision on the upcoming single play rather than looking at the overall picture.They based their decision on the potential to lose the game immediately, as opposed to how they might perform in OT. The other finding that's very interesting is that when people think they have a choice they'll usually choose to avoid the risk, but when they feel they have no choice they'll take the risk. The experimenters set up this scenario: They divided the test group into two groups. They were both told that their team had just scored in the final seconds. But Group A was told their team was down 1, while Group B was told they were down 2. Then they told both groups that the team would go for 2. Group A were asked if the 2 point conversion would work or fail, and they believed it would fail. In other words, they saw the risk as "optional" and therefore they didn't believe it would succeed. I'm of the belief that more teams should go for two in situations like this and this study confirms my belief. What do you guys think?