Changing the extra point
Poll
 | 2 votes (15.38%) | ||
| | 8 votes (61.53%) | ||
| | 3 votes (23.07%) |
13 members have voted
The idea is the extra points are pretty much a given. There's no excitement involved in them at all. They're missed so rarely, that extra point stats read like election returns in a totalitarian country. Even so, games have been lost for missed PATs.
An earlier suggestion by Commissioner Roger Goodell was to do way with extra pints altogether. His notion was that a TD would be worth 7 points, but the team could got for an eighth point by doing what is now a two-point conversion. Only if the team fails, then the TD is worth 6 points. IN other words, the team would bet one point and be paid even points if it succeeded and lose it if it failed.
The question is whether you favor messing around with the extra point or not.
I haven't given the matter much thought. It would seem anything that's routine and unexciting should go, but there are good arguments against changing it, too. More two-point conversion attempts, for instance, means more chances for injury for all concerned (close play with little room to maneuver and all that). A longer kick gives that much more incentive to attempt a block.
I other words I'm not sure. But it's a good thing to see it discussed. IN fact, the NFL should welcome outside input on other ides for substituting the extra point.
this would mess up the sports books for sure. I doubt this will happen. People hate changeQuote: NareedThe NFL makes rules changes frequently. Some have more of an impact in the game than others, naturally. This year here's a proposal to change the extra point (or Point after TD) from its current spot to the 25-yard line. That would make it a 43-yard kick, more or less. Presumably the two-point conversion would remain as is.
The idea is the extra points are pretty much a given. There's no excitement involved in them at all. They're missed so rarely, that extra point stats read like election returns in a totalitarian country. Even so, games have been lost for missed PATs.
An earlier suggestion by Commissioner Roger Goodell was to do way with extra pints altogether. His notion was that a TD would be worth 7 points, but the team could got for an eighth point by doing what is now a two-point conversion. Only if the team fails, then the TD is worth 6 points. IN other words, the team would bet one point and be paid even points if it succeeded and lose it if it failed.
The question is whether you favor messing around with the extra point or not.
I haven't given the matter much thought. It would seem anything that's routine and unexciting should go, but there are good arguments against changing it, too. More two-point conversion attempts, for instance, means more chances for injury for all concerned (close play with little room to maneuver and all that). A longer kick gives that much more incentive to attempt a block.
I other words I'm not sure. But it's a good thing to see it discussed. IN fact, the NFL should welcome outside input on other ides for substituting the extra point.
From just a basis of math, it becomes a no brainer to always go for two. Historically the success rate on 2 point conversion attempts has been 50%, meaning that for every 100 tries you'll score 100 points. So if I'm only getting 1 point for that new extra point from the 25 yd line, I'd need to be successful 100/100 times to match the point expectantcy of always going for 2.
Game situations may dictate the strategy used. Let's say I'm a coach and my team is down by 6 with one second left. We score a TD to tie the game, now given the choice of the 43 yard FG extra point or a 2 point conversion to win the game, what do I do? Oddly enough I think some coaches go for 2. Especially GreenBay, New Orleans.. Great offenses.
I don't think the 1 point and 2 point should be equally difficult
Quote: 98ClubsI don't like the idea at all... either make a touchdown 7 points, or if at 6 points, set the ball on the 3 yard line. A completed pass in the endzone is 1 point, a rush that breaks the endzone plane is 2 points. The combination of pass plus rush is 1 point (completed pass short of the endzone plane). The play does not consume time.
I don't like this idea. It will be 100% rush attempts from that distance. If you want to move it to the 10-yard line for 2 points run/1 point pass, just like the conversion rules in my favorite video game of all-time "Cyberball", then it may be more interesting. But in "Cyberball" though, you exploded if you failed to reach the endzone on a run or pass short of the endzone...lol
Quote: DRichI love the idea of moving the extra point back but I think they should move the 2 point conversion back to the 5 yard line.
Yes, it definitely needs to be more difficult than going for 1 point, from a percentage success rate standpoint.
What does annoy me is too many commercials... Specifically when the NFL goes Touchdown - the inevitable scoring play Review - Extra Point - commercial - kickoff - commercial - first down. It's basically 15 minutes of real time with nothing of substance happening.
I'm confused. And maybe it's because I'm not a big fan.Quote: michael99000The 43 yard FG attempt for the extra 1 point vs. going for the 2 point conversion from its current spot.
Doesn't that mean you need to declare whether you're gonna go for 1 or 2? Do that, and the defense can be better prepared.
Also, in the current system, a botched snap for a FG attempt can still be turned into a 2 point play.
What am I missing?
Quote: IbeatyouracesI say get rid of the punt and make teams go for it on fourth down.
Can you imagine when your team has 4th and 17 in their own 2-yard line?
But I would favor treating puts like time-outs. Say you get three to five per half only. This way teams would not punt from their own or their opponents 40, and also be more likely to go for it on 4 and short situations regardless of field position.
There are lots of things you "could" do but this is not broken, so why fix it?
They need to work on things like consistent officiating, quicker replays, and shorter breaks in the action first. There are only 10-15 minutes of action in three hours as it is...
Quote: IbeatyouracesI say get rid of the punt and make teams go for it on fourth down.
The Cfl would be immensely improved by doing that on third down....
Quote: thecesspitThe Cfl would be immensely improved by doing that on third down....
I thought for certain if Canada had a football league, they wouldn't let the Bills anywhere near the Queen's Dominion. ;)
Quote: DJTeddyBearI'm confused. And maybe it's because I'm not a big fan.
Doesn't that mean you need to declare whether you're gonna go for 1 or 2? Do that, and the defense can be better prepared.
Also, in the current system, a botched snap for a FG attempt can still be turned into a 2 point play.
What am I missing?
How many points do you get if you line up for the 43-yarder, botch the snap, and get into the end zone?
Quote: DJTeddyBearI'm confused. And maybe it's because I'm not a big fan.
Doesn't that mean you need to declare whether you're gonna go for 1 or 2? Do that, and the defense can be better prepared.
Also, in the current system, a botched snap for a FG attempt can still be turned into a 2 point play.
What am I missing?
As it stands now you basically always declare whether you're going for 1 or 2. If you line up with your holder and kicker out there you're going for 1, if you have your QB and normal offense out there you're going for 2.
The botched snap on an extra point turned into a 2 point conversion happens maybe once per season in the entire league.
Quote: michael99000As it stands now you basically always declare whether you're going for 1 or 2. If you line up with your holder and kicker out there you're going for 1, if you have your QB and normal offense out there you're going for 2.
The botched snap on an extra point turned into a 2 point conversion happens maybe once per season in the entire league.
A fake is a reasonable thing to do in certain situations though.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceA fake is a reasonable thing to do in certain situations though.
When?
If you need to go for 2, why have anything but your offense out there? Lining up for an extra point kick and faking it never makes sense.
Which is why fakes on extra point attempts basically never happen
Quote: michael99000
The botched snap on an extra point turned into a 2 point conversion happens maybe once per season in the entire league.
And back in the 80s it was still worth one. You could intentionally line up for a play back then for 1 point as well; obviously no one ever did.
And apparently the first 2 point conversion in the NFL came from a fake PAT attempt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_conversion
Quote: michael99000Although the extra point as it's kicked now is rather mundane and predictable (99% success in recent years), I watch tons of football and I've never once been annoyed by it. I guess because it happens so quick and the excitement of the TD that was just scored hasn't quite worn off yet. But I can't ever recall saying "oh geez I gotta sit through another extra point"
True. And often the TD replays come after the PAT, or at least more TD replays come then. So people don't even take a break for the extra point.
But would people miss it if it were gone? A two-point conversion (which needs a shorter name, BTW) does rivet you to the screen.
Now, how about this? Leave the extra point as is, the two-pointer as is, but give the option to kick a 50-yard three-point conversion. That would really screw-up the dynamics of close games.
Quote:What does annoy me is too many commercials... Specifically when the NFL goes Touchdown - the inevitable scoring play Review - Extra Point - commercial - kickoff - commercial - first down. It's basically 15 minutes of real time with nothing of substance happening.
There's no help for that. That's how all those expensive players get paid.
Therefore, the 11 players on the field that scored the touchdown, should be the only ones on the field to attempt the try. No more "specialists."
I see someone mentioned the College Overtime rule.
No, just no. That is not football. College football has a lot of bad rules. And along the extra point, the fact that the defense can score 2 points on a failed PAT conversion is just wrong. The defense has no right to score any points after giving up a touchdown.
Don't get me started.....
;-)
I think it's a great idea.....adds more drama to the game.
It accomplishes nothing. All it does is decrease the number of extra points made by a slim margin, thereby increasing the number of 2-point conversions. Doing so would defeat any notion of player safety as a valid reason for implementing such a change. The only positive possibility is the introduction of stat-heads who would employ more 2-point conversions due to a higher expected value, but the NFL is notoriously safe and conservative when it comes to strategy. Even when the math says to go for 2, to go for it on 4th and 1, etc. no one wants to do it because they're afraid that taking a chance that doesnt pay off will cost them their jobs while taking a chance that does pay off will still be viewed negatively.
So yeah, it won't help.
Quote: hwccdealerThis idea is as silly as introducing the 3-point conversion.
Or moving the kick-off so far forward as to render it meaningless? If it wasn't for the on-side kick, the kick-off would be dead by now.
Quote:Doing so would defeat any notion of player safety as a valid reason for implementing such a change.
That would be the way to fight it: it does expose players to a higher risk of injury.
Quote: AxelWolfthis would mess up the sports books for sure. I doubt this will happen. People hate change
given the rule change for automatic 7 points or try for 8 with a 6 point TD for failure would not change the score compared to last year or sports books.
Last year only 5 point afters were missed. tHATS ONE EVERY 3 WEEKS.
So how many touchdowns are scored in 3 weeks?...200-250
So teams will get their 7 points as they do over 99 percent of the time. They will go for 8 points when they have to like they always did before.
And in the past if they went for the 2 point conversion...and missed...they would get 6 points as well...no change.
nothing has changed. There is no reason for anyone to go for the 8 points more than they used to.
If anything it will shorten the game a little. They dont get extra revenue for the extra point. They dont go for a commercial and make you wait for the extra point after the commercial...so the networks dont care if its eliminated.
It might cut 5 minutes out of a game.
or a field goal a way of getting possession of the ball right back.
It would be via a 4th down and 25 yards to go scenario. So if you score a touchdown and your in a position in the game where you normally would've needed to try
an onsides kick, instead the ball will be placed at your own 30 yard line, your normal offense and opponents defense is on the field, and you have one play to get 25 yards. If you succeed you get
possession right there first down, if you fail the other team takes over at your 40.
This is the onsides kick solution being discussed for if kickoffs are completely removed from the game. Kickoffs have been deemed to be the most dangerous plays in football,
causing the most injuries, and numerous penalties.
The one aspect that would be totally gone from the game would be the surprise onside kick, one not done at the end of the game when losing. Under this new method you'd obviously
have to announce to the refs and to your opponent that your trying it. the reason they would use 4th and 25 is because historically that play is converted about equally as often as an onside kick. So % wise it wouldn't be any easier or harder to retain possession after scoring.
It obviously favors good quarterbacks/passing teams, but then again doesn't everything the NFL has done over the past 20 years.
I like the idea, although I'll miss seeing a well executed and recovered onside kick. It was an art form for kickers.
In the end although they say they want to make the game safer as the lawsuites come in.....they really want to make the game more entertaining. Because afterall...this is entertainment.
I dont think the extra point issue is intended to save lives. The extra point was never a high injury proposition. But it was a boring proposition where you could easily leave the room and go get food, or leave your seat at the stadium because its just a mundane anticlimactic portion of the game. Due to skill levels there is no perceived advanced professional skill attached to this kick.
Because of skill level there is some initial talk of moving the 3 point line back because that shot is being hit at such a high level now.
I think allowing a defense to know that the other team has to get 25 yards...allows the defense to key in on certain palyers and certain areas of the field where they can be ready to really put a hard hit. I think that play where the defense can prepare for it, knows its coming....could really be a play that creates more injuries than an expected or unexpected on sides kick.
Quote: NareedHow about moving the extra point and two-point conversion to the 10-yard line?
sice the 2 point conversion is not even close to autimatic....i can see leaving it as it is.
moving the point after back is a valid alternative
Quote: LarrySsice the 2 point conversion is not even close to autimatic....i can see leaving it as it is.
I'm thinking more room to maneuver might give the offense an edge.
Of course, the offense already has more than just an edge in the current rules overall, not just in the extra point.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/colts-owner-jim-irsay-arrested-on-suspicion-of-dui--possession-130024576.html
I am laying 8 to 1 his cash was not impounded !
As for the extra point, my sense is kick for one from the 25, try for two from the current spot (2-yard line) will be rolled out in the pre-season only and then considered for change in the 2015 season.
Let the team that scored the touchdown either get one point for nothing, or go for two.
I like the idea better, though, of moving back the extra point kick for one, but making them still try it. Leave go for two at the same distance.
So yeah, that eliminates the surprise two point tries. You could leave in a score for two from the 25, though, if you really wanted to go for it, or more likely recover from a botched kick.
Quote: BuzzardThink this NFL person will be suspended ?
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/colts-owner-jim-irsay-arrested-on-suspicion-of-dui--possession-130024576.html
I am laying 8 to 1 his cash was not impounded !
Just another idiot who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Funny how often they turn out this way.
Quote: Dalex64My original thought was to eliminate the extra point.
Let the team that scored the touchdown either get one point for nothing, or go for two.
.
Well then it would really be like "going for 1" , right.. If you make a TD worth 7, and only award one more point for doing the conversion .
Why would a team ever not go for it, if the risk/reward is you get the 8th point if you make it or you keep the 7 if you don't.
It's gotta be you get only 6 if you go for it and don't make it
Quote: michael99000Well then it would really be like "going for 1" , right.. If you make a TD worth 7, and only award one more point for doing the conversion .
Why would a team ever not go for it, if the risk/reward is you get the 8th point if you make it or you keep the 7 if you don't.
It's gotta be you get only 6 if you go for it and don't make it
I didn't say (or mean to say if it was interpreted this way) that you should get to keep the 7 if you go for two and don't make it. You can either take 7, or take 6 and try for two.
But its one play.... not 1st and goal from the 5 or even 4th and goal from the 5, and its for 1 or 2 points, not 3. Both of these propositions have different answers, and 4th and goal goes FG attempt a great majority of occasions. The object IMHO was to retain the "Extra-Point/Conversion", but reduce the 99% proposition to say 6/7 to 9/10.
The above is why I have NFL Red Zone, commercial free football for 6 and 1/2 hours every Sunday.
Have had it since day one - best 40 bucks I can spend! Getting a bit diluted now though with the additional Thursday games.Quote: SOOPOO
The above is why I have NFL Red Zone, commercial free football for 6 and 1/2 hours every Sunday.
Quote: SkittleCar1The RedZone channel is the greatest thing ever invented.
Meh.
I can watch it for free three hours every Sunday. I preffer to watch a game, rather than just highlights.
Quote: SkittleCar1The RedZone channel is the greatest thing ever invented.
I have a friend who said the exact same thing. I'm surprised the networks, who are paying billions so I have to watch their commercials, allow the NFL to exist. It takes the most fervent fans out of the 'watch commercial' market!
