Goodell Wants to Get Rid of the Extra Point

[CATCH17]

I'd be for it if whenever they score a TD they go straight to kickoff instead of hitting us with 5 minutes of commercials before play finally resumes.

 

[bark]

Can we make this ruling retroactive. Say to the yr 2006 maybe just before the playoffs.

 

[Rockytop6]

The logic being that we shouldn't fix something that's bad simply because something else is worse?

I love the idea that a TD is 7 points and you're allowed to gamble a point of that on a try.

Is there a good argument for preserving the extra point (as is) other than, "That's how it's always been done?" I haven't seen one.

Here's the argument for changing it: In 1950, XPs were a 94% proposition. In 1970, 96%. Today, 99.6%. Keeping the rules the same doesn't keep the game the same.

Then the question is: Is the extra point bad or should we be open to something better? I personally don't see it *** being 'bad'. I've witnessed missed extra points, blocked extra points, bad snaps (remember Romo) and fumbles. I confess I am somewhat of a purist and love football as it is/was until the powers that be wanted to do away with dynasties and bring every team down to level field and watered down football. You would think Goodell would be happy as the quality has been weakened. After Goodell finishes up will we then have flag football? I enjoy good defenses as well as good offences.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Then the question is: Is the extra point bad or should we be open to something better? I personally don't see it *** being 'bad'. I've witnessed missed extra points, blocked extra points, bad snaps (remember Romo) and fumbles. I confess I am somewhat of a purist and love football as it is/was until the powers that be wanted to do away with dynasties and bring every team down to level field and watered down football. You would think Goodell would be happy as the quality has been weakened. After Goodell finishes up will we then have flag football? I enjoy good defenses as well as good offences.

My point (well, one of my points) is that even a "purist" who loves "football as it was" can't keep the game from changing by keeping the rules the same. A scoring play that fails every 20th time is a very different animal from one that fails every 250th time. At some point, the game has changed so much that that play really is a waste of time. Personally, I think we passed that point a long time ago.

I have no idea what doing away with the extra point has do do with destroying dynasties, flag football, or good defenses and offenses.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I'd be for it if whenever they score a TD they go straight to kickoff instead of hitting us with 5 minutes of commercials before play finally resumes.

One thing I'm certain of: there will never be a rule change that results in fewer commercials. At least until all games are pay-per-view.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

The logic being that we shouldn't fix something that's bad simply because something else is worse?

I love the idea that a TD is 7 points and you're allowed to gamble a point of that on a try.

Is there a good argument for preserving the extra point (as is) other than, "That's how it's always been done?" I haven't seen one.

Here's the argument for changing it: In 1950, XPs were a 94% proposition. In 1970, 96%. Today, 99.6%. Keeping the rules the same doesn't keep the game the same.

How about just moving it back to where the percentage is back to 95% or so?

BTW, as so often happens, I think Belichick's intent has been changed by bloggers and commentators to fit what they want it to be. He didn't say get rid of extra points because they're a waste of time. It was more along the lines of keep the extra point but make it a little more difficult.

“I personally would love to see the kicking game remain as a very integral part of the game so that the kickoffs are returned and so that extra points are not over 99 percent converted because that’s not what extra points were when they were initially put into the game back 80 years ago, whatever it was,” Belichick said.

“I would be in favor of not seeing it be an over 99 percent conversion rate,” Belichick said. “It’s virtually automatic. That’s just not the way the extra point was put into the game. It was an extra point that you actually had to execute and it was executed by players who were not specialists, they were position players. It was a lot harder for them to do. The Gino Cappellettis of the world and so forth and they were very good. It’s not like it is now where it’s well over 99 percent. I don’t think that’s really a very exciting play because it’s so automatic.”

 

[Miller]

I don't mind the idea. Kickers are still important. I haven't read all 5 pages so excuse me this has been said. But if you want an alternative and a) keep the kicker integral and b) have some fun with getting 8 points..just make the kicker hit a 50-55 yarder for the 8th point. Most of these guys are good enough to easily hit from 50 but it brings the percentages down and if its a bad weather/windy game..it makes the coach make a decision. The only issue here is that many coaches will just go for 8 every time. Just another bad idea to make it quirky.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

How about just moving it back to where the percentage is back to 95% or so?

A good idea as well, but the league likely disagrees with Belichick and could just see it as an opportunity to get rid of a play that nobody cares about and bears no resemblance to what football has evolved into post-rugby.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Since we're on the subject, another annoying thing is the kneel down. I believe it's called the victory formation or whatever. If it's mathematically impossible to stop the clock, they should just end the game. For example, yesterday's NFC game. San Fran had 2 timeouts. There was I believe 40 seconds on the clock. Seahawks kneeled, San Fran called time, 37 seconds left---Seahawks kneel, San Fran calls last timeout, 34 seconds left--3rd down, Seahawks kneel, time expires.

I see what you are saying, but there is always room for error. The qb could screw up the exchange and fumble it, the defense could overload the center and create havok (believe that was st louis or some NFC team who did that alot last year), anyways, kneel downs statistically are gimmes but to take it out of the game without risk I would say no.

 

[festus]

If He does that, maybe make a field goal attempt over 55 yds a four point play?

 

[Hook'em#11]

I swear I friggin hate this dude..

Can't wait for the day he is out on his keester. He is destroying this once great game. Little by little.

It ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[Parcells4Life]

Can we make this ruling retroactive. Say to the yr 2006 maybe just before the playoffs.

Why? Romo fumbled a field goal not PAT attempt

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

35 yard field goal would be great for extra-points, also widen/legthen the field,make the nets bigger in Hockey, define the strike zone for more scoring in baseball and raise basketball goals to 11 ft.


You can thank me later!

 

[WV Cowboy]

Why not just make the PAT a much longer kick?

Or have a narrower set of goal posts for extra points, .. really narrow.

 

[big dog cowboy]

This thread is giving me a headache. Friggin Goodell.

 

[cej757]

The next rule change will be any fg over 50 yds will be 4pts instead of 3.

 

[WV Cowboy]

As old fashioned as I am, and being the traditionalist that I am, .. I am surprising myself that I am ok with this change.

 

[JD_KaPow]

How about just moving it back to where the percentage is back to 95% or so?

Works for me. It looks like the 10-yard line or so would do it. But again, I'll note for the "purists", we're now talking about how keeping the game the way it used to be would require a rule change.

But of course that rule change would be problematic, because it would massively change the way 2-point conversions work. Unless the team declares what kind of try they're going after and the yard line is set accordingly. Of course, the 2-point conversion (which is awesome, IMHO) is a new rule itself.

 

[Rockytop6]

My point (well, one of my points) is that even a "purist" who loves "football as it was" can't keep the game from changing by keeping the rules the same. A scoring play that fails every 20th time is a very different animal from one that fails every 250th time. At some point, the game has changed so much that that play really is a waste of time. Personally, I think we passed that point a long time ago.

I have no idea what doing away with the extra point has do do with destroying dynasties, flag football, or good defenses and offenses.

You are right. Doing away with the extra point has NOTHING to do with dynasties, flag football, etc, etc. My point is that football has changed so much now until you have a bunch of mediocre teams and it is called parity. The extra point is another step in a line of steps. Now JJ wants to add another 4 teams to the playoff picture. If you can't put a quality team on the field then lower the bar. None of these things taken in isolation might not have greatly affected the game but when you add them up in a few years we probably won't even recognize it.

The game doesn't change by itself. People with their own personal agenda changes the game. This could develop into a long drawn out discussion which would be fruitless, so I respect your opinion and will retain mine. Be blessed.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The game doesn't change by itself. People with their own personal agenda changes the game. This could develop into a long drawn out discussion which would be fruitless, so I respect your opinion and will retain mine. Be blessed.

I can't let that first sentence there go without comment. The game does change "by itself". XP percentages didn't go from 94% to 99.6% because of anyone's personal agenda. They changed because of a whole variety of factors, from better fields to bigger stronger athletes to better techniques to better paychecks (making being an NFL kicker more attractive than doing something else, like playing soccer). You can either accept these kinds of changes or you can change the rules to address them. Either way, the game is different from how it used to be.