I can't remember what year it was (probably 4-5 ago) that (I think) DT (who was on TSN doing those animations) ran the numbers and said the numbers proved teams should always go for 2. Around the same time CGY and HAM started going for 2 a whack ton. The insiders may have talked about it as well, and the booth guys.
It was kind of the buzz for a couple of weeks that year.
If "CFL wide" (i.e. all averages) show going for 2 can make sense, then imagine how those numbers calc out when your kicker misses PATs like I miss the bullseye at darts. Add in the fact that your O is one of the best in the CFL (especially in red zone) and... should be a no-brainer for our team!!
And CGY was doing it with rarely-misses-PAT Parades!!
Going for 2 is a risk/reward scenario that statistically has seemed worth doing. The key concern that I can see is, missing a convert, whether a 1 or 2 point try, means changing the dynamic of the score. By pacing along at 7 pet TD, you keep the score need to catch up more consistent.
That said, until the 4th quarter, it should be 100% about scoring the absolute most points possible, and if you hit on 50% of 2 pt conversions, that is equal to the best you can do kicking. If you can squeak that to 60%, you are in plus territory, and if it falls to 40%, that's equal to 80% PAT conversion.
But I can see that taking away a PAT responsibility from a K might go against MOS's philosophy. Kinda undercuts your confidence. Unless they have a 2pt conversion specialist group on the team that converts well over 50% and he can tell his K that it is in the teams best interest to go for the most points on average, sticking with the slightly less productive overall, but more consistently productive single, whilst getting your K more live game reps to keep his foot in the game makes sense.