Unreal. You guys are missing the biggest element here. IF they converted on that first 2 point try call, yes, that would have been great and there would not need to be an onside kick attempt. (Unless ATL scored on their drive) anyway, the thing for me that makes this a no brainer is the reality of IF you do not convert. That is a big deal because the chance of not converting is high. SO, if you follow that logic this will all make sense.
Miss the 2 point conversion means you are now down by 9 points. That decision has forced your hand into now having to score 2 times to win the game. With 4 minutes left, this is very difficult. It happens but I am sure level headed people will agree that it is pretty hard. For one you have to stop the other team from scoring or even making a couple first downs on you. If all they do is make 1 first down I think it is game over. But certainly 2. With our defense that is a real tall order. Then we have to still score a TD with whatever time is left. Since we are now down by 9, we cannot attempt to tie the game here. We are forced to kick the PAT and now attempt the hardest thing to do in all of football, recover an onside kick. Do that and yeah, you are in the catbird seat. I would love for a statistician to show just how difficult this scenario is. It is why this will be one of the most improbably wins in Cowboys history.
Now, let me walk you though the sane logic. After scoring the TD and we instead try for the PAT and are down by 8. 4 minutes remaining, we kick off. We stop ATL on 3 and out just like above. Now we have several minutes to more comfortably drive down for the TD. Since we did in the above scenario, we are here too. Now the game has come down to converting the 2 point conversion. If we miss this, the game is over in my scenario. We could attempt the onside kick but by then there would be hardly any time remaining. This is not proof that the above scenario is better. Going for 2 is hard and is why it should never be attempted until you absolutely need it. If you miss, than you congratulate your opponent on the win and move on. If you convert it, you are tied and go to OT. Now you have a chance to win the game here. The odds of this happening in this scenario are better than the odds in the above scenario. This is why it is better to do the right thing and give yourself better odds. It is all about giving yourself better odds. None of this is guaranteed. You guys talk as if it is a guarantee.
The first scenario has the highest risk. It is riverboat gambling at its best. Roll that dice and if it comes up your way, you look like a genius. If it doesn't you look like an idiot. Sprinkle in a miracle and bam, now you are a genius again. The first scenario however does allow you to win the game in regulation which the 2nd scenario does not. But it has such a high risk that it is pure gambling. Sometimes you will win but more often you will lose. That is how gambling works.
The second scenario has a lower risk but does require you to win in OT. However, the odds are much more in your favor overall. Yes the 2 point conversion is the same chance in either scenario. However if you are happy with that risk, than going for it with a few seconds left in the game should be fine and dandy too. To me it is. This scenario avoids an onside kick. There is no onside kick. You either tie and go to OT or you lose. Give me the chance to extend the game into OT every time. I like those odds better than asking my team to potentially have to convert an onside kick. That is why folks what McCarthy did is pure riverboat gambling and is not the wisest thing to do. It worked this time. So congrats.