NFL considering proposal to abolish extra points

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Is the extra point about to go the way of the dinosaur?

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told NFL Network's Rich Eisen on Monday that the league's Competition Committee might eventually abolish the time-tested point after touchdown in favor of a brand-new scoring system.

"The extra point is almost automatic," Goodell said. "I believe we had five missed extra points this year out of 1,200 some odd. So it's a very small fraction of the play, and you want to add excitement with every play.

"There's one proposal in particular that I've heard about. It's automatic that you get seven points when you score a touchdown, but you could potentially go for an eighth point, either by running or passing the ball, so if you fail, you go back to six."

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000315779/article/nfl-considering-proposal-to-abolish-extra-points

[BroncoWave]

I would absolutely love this. Remember the Lions-Eagles game this year where they had to go for 2 every TD because there was too much snow to kick? That was unbelievably exciting. I imagine the people who are used to the XP and set in their ways will scream about against it and complain about how Goodell is ruining the league, but I think this is an excellent idea. What is the point of a play that is automatic?

[sneakers]

what a bunch of geese.

leave the XP alone! it didnt do nothing to you goodeel

[Apollo]

For viewing purposes, I think this would work great. You get the option of playing conservative and just taking the 7 points which is pretty much what happens when you kick an extra point, or the option of passing/running with a 2 point swing on the line which is exactly what happens now.

[pulse]

Bah, why the hell are there so many proposals to change the game coming out this winter? Anyway, I don't want them to remove the extra point. What I would like them to do is move it back about 20 yards to make it at least more than a chipshot FG. This keeps special teams involved on all scores but makes it at least challenging. There is a lot of coaching strategy involved in the decision to kick the extra point and go for two as a close game progresses through the second half.

[weazel]

its the most popular game in our corner of the world and they are constantly trying to change it, I dont get it.

[Davii]

Useless proposal, dumb idea. You can go for two anytime you want, why not have an option? Take the automatic 1 or try for two. Makes more sense that way.

[Apollo]

Well, let's put it this way, the NFL has proposed and implemented far more stupid rule changes that this one doesn't seem so bad.

[aberdien]

It should be changed, but not eliminated. Move the goalposts closer together. For extra points, put the ball at the 35 or something just to make it more difficult. No need to eliminate.

[Army Bronco]

(Screaming) ...ahhhh rabble rabble. Goodell is ruining the league!

[dogfish]

they should also make the field a hexagon instead of a rectangle. . .

think of the possibilities!

hell, why not make the field a giant octagon-- you could have FOUR ENDZONES!!

*farts*

[CrazyHorse]

How about instead they make fumble recoveries reviewable.

[Army Bronco]

they should also make the field a hexagon instead of a rectangle. . .

think of the possibilities!

hell, why not make the field a giant octagon-- you could have FOUR ENDZONES!!

*farts* Why not make the goal posts more like the ones on Harry Potter..you know that game where Harry is up on a broom flying around.

[dogfish]

Why not make the goal posts more like the ones on Harry Potter..you know that game where Harry is up on a broom flying around.

totally. . . football would be a lot more exciting if they figured out how to play with three teams at once. . .

[Joel]

It's a good idea, especially as proposed: 7 pts—UNLESS a team goes "double or nothing" on an end zone attempt from the 2. It preserves the possibility of a 2 PAT when needed (which HAS made pro games far more interesting than when teams down 15 or 16 pts needed 3 scores) without making it no-risk (as would be the case if 7 pts guaranteed even on missed 2 PATs.)

It's the same argument many people have been making for decades: In the old days PATs were far from automatic, and truly did reward scoring teams who managed just a little bit more; 7-6 games decided by successful PATs were common in footballs early days even when both teams scored a TD.

Kickers and equipment are MUCH better now, and the PAT is so close to automatic that the rare misses are invariably due to a bad snap or Romoesque hold. The PAT's no longer an occasional REWARD for exceptional teams who genuinely do something "extra"—it's a rare PENALTY for incredibly bad luck. The only saving grace is that it usually doesn't matter; the PAT's only worth 1 pt, so it almost never decides ANY game, let alone one with playoff implications (though it can slightly alter draft order.)

Yet even on the VERY rare occasions a missed PAT makes a huge real difference, being almost entirely luck rather than skill makes it incredibly arbitrary and unfair, like flipping a coin to decide who does and doesn't go to the playoffs (yes, I realize that's the final tiebreak, but only after exhausting a DOZEN merit-based tiebreaks.) Let's go all the way back to Christmas Eve 2006: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200612240den.htm

Some of ya'll probably remember the game; I certainly do, because I had a huge fight with my mom over whether we'd drive to her brothers house for Christmas before or AFTER the game. It was a big one: With just 2 weeks left in the season, Cincy came to Denver in tight race with each other, NY and KC for the wildcard spots. It was a back and forth; on the first scrimmage play, Cutler threw a pick returned to our 5, but 3 plays later we were bailed out when D-Will picked Palmer n the end zone (the last game I ever saw D-Will play.)

We took a 4 pt lead to the fourth quarter, extened to 7 on an Elam FG, then Cincy got a drive going, only to have Lynch cause a fumble at our 24, recovered by rookie Elvis Dumervil. We did a whole lotta nuthin', exchanged punts a few times, then Cincy got another drive going, and that one reached the end zone with 0:46 to play: 28--27 Denver, with the PAT to come and force OT unless we reached FG range in about half a minute. Yet there'd been a light drizzle off and on all day though, and the holder bobbled it, tried to run and was tackled: Game over.

After a heroic three and a half hour struggle between two very good teams, that game was won (or rather, LOST) by incredibly bad luck on a PAT. Cincinatti lost their final game to Pitt (ironically, despite a 2 TD rally that DID force OT) and missed the playoffs because of that missed PAT: They finished 8-8, a game behind the #6 seed Chiefs Cincy beat in Week 2.

It gets better though: If not for the insane rule that says division standing's the first tiebreak for wildcards CREATED TO IGNORE DIVISIONS, we would've MADE the playoffs (despite the thuggish way the 7-9 '9ers won OUR final game in OT) again, solely because of that flukey missed PAT. Beating Cincy gave us the tiebreak over all bubble teams EXCEPT KC, because they had a better divison record; unfortunately, all other bubble teams had the tiebreak over KC, so the only we made the playoffs was if KC was #5 seed, which was impossible.

What if we'd finished ahead of KC in the division though? Well, in that case, Denver would've been #6 seed and Cincy would've stayed home, solely because of a PAT missed solely due to luck. After something like that, deciding playoff teams by coin flip seems relatively fair.

Frankly, I think this may be the first good idea Goodell's ever had. Touchdowns score 7 unless you want to roll the dice and take the 50/50 shot of getting either 6 or 8. Good deal, Goodell.

Also, Praters season PAT record becomes pretty much unbreakable. :tongue:

[Joel]

Useless proposal, dumb idea. You can go for two anytime you want, why not have an option? Take the automatic 1 or try for two. Makes more sense that way.
Um, "take the automatic 1 or try for two" IS the proposal. The current PAT isn't automatic, just nearly so; on very rare occasions of incredibly bad luck PAT kicks are missed. It's not a bonus for a good accomplishment, but a penalty for bad luck. A "bad luck penalty" on a team that just scored a TD seems a little wrong. Take the LITERALLY automatic 1 or try for 2; let's do it.


its the most popular game in our corner of the world and they are constantly trying to change it, I dont get it.
The reason it's ONLY popular in our corner of the world is they've been constantly changing it from the start: That's why it's not rugby anymore. Should we go back to the days when forward passes were illegal, every tackle resulted in a scrum, and the team with the ball had no requirement to have anyone on a line of scrimmage that didn't exist?

Football's all about change, and always has been; that's one reason it's such a quintessentially Twentieth Century TV sport (which, in turn, is one reason baseball's no longer Americas Pastime.)

[ShaneFalco]

dumb dumb, and more dumb.

i like that teams have the extra point. Especially when games are determined by a 2 point conversion.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

It should be changed, but not eliminated. Move the goalposts closer together. For extra points, put the ball at the 35 or something just to make it more difficult. No need to eliminate.

If you move the goal posts closer together, that will also affect field goal kicks.

[aberdien]

If you move the goal posts closer together, that will also affect field goal kicks.

Exactly. Thus making field goal kicking more difficult and competitive. And tense. I think it would be more fun.

I also think that if nobody scores at the end of overtime, they should do a field goal shoot out (not unlike the penalty shootout in soccer) where the field goal kickers would take turns making field goals. Penalty shootouts in soccer are incredibly tense and stressful, and I think that would be better than allowing a game to end in a tie.

[dogfish]

and horses. . . they should use horses. . .



need a better name for the game, too. . .

[dogfish]

If you move the goal posts closer together, that will also affect field goal kicks.

if you get rid of posts and replace them with giant baskets, that would also affect field goals. . .

[Joel]

dumb dumb, and more dumb.

i like that teams have the extra point. Especially when games are determined by a 2 point conversion.
Did you miss the part where nothing happens to the 2 PAT? All that changes is the 2/1200 missed KICKS this year go away, along with the remote but real possibility they change the winner of a game—sometimes even a playoff spot—all because a team that JUST SCORED A TD has a bad snap afterward.

A missed PAT almost NEVER matters, but the rare occasions it DOES matter are EXACTLY why we should dump the PAT altogether. The majority of traditionalists not only tolerate but cherish it because it's never bitten them in the butt—but sooner or later it will; it's only a matter of probability and time.

The guys who wrote The Hidden Game of Football a quarter century ago dug up every play of the '84-'86 seasons, no easy task when home computers were a novel luxury and no one but Al Gore and DARPA had ever heard of the internet. In those 3 seasons of 28 teams playing 16 games, they found a grand total of 43 missed PATs—and 42 had NO EFFECT ON WHO WON!

The ONE exception was Washington@Denver in Week 15: We won 31-30 thanks to a 'Skins miss. That clinched the AFCW for us and the NFCE for NY: We hosted all our playoff games and went to the SB; the 'Skins were on the road for all their playoff games and went to the NFCCG—in NEW YORK, not Washington. Without a bad snap that cost them a PAT, and therefore the game, NY still would've won their last two and the NFCE, but we would've finished tied with KC (though if I tracked it all right we still would've won the division on the fourth tiebreak.)


Bah, why the hell are there so many proposals to change the game coming out this winter? Anyway, I don't want them to remove the extra point. What I would like them to do is move it back about 20 yards to make it at least more than a chipshot FG. This keeps special teams involved on all scores but makes it at least challenging. There is a lot of coaching strategy involved in the decision to kick the extra point and go for two as a close game progresses through the second half.
That's the solution THGoF favored; based on those 3 seasons worth of plays, they calculated a FG from the 20 has about a 67% success rate. That's no longer a gimme, and goes back to the PATs original intent: Rewarding a team good enough to do something very good (i.e. score a TD) with a bonus if they're good enough to do just a little more (i.e. make a challenging kick.)

They concluded the NFL will never dump the PAT kick because the set up for the PAT is when we get all the TD replays from every angle imaginable, so without it the networks would have to trim the commercial break to show those replays, and "TV gives up commercials about as easily as the Russian army gave up Stalingrad."

One of these days though (next year, next decade; next century) a playoff game—maybe even a Super Bowl—will be won (or rather, lost) because one of the NFLs top two teams had some stunningly awful back luck on a PAT. The day that happens, the team, its fans and its OWNER (i.e. the guy on the NFL Competition Committee) will raise unholy Hell, and everyone except the team who won will be thinking, That could be us next time.... Actually, no: EVERYONE will be THINKING it; the winning team will just be the only ones not SAYING it.

[Davii]

What you call bad luck others call bad execution. This proposal makes absolutely no sense. "Well they almost always make it so let's just give it to them.".

The QB almost always gets the snap, there are pretty few bad exchanges with the QB so let's get rid of the exchange. Just let the QB start with the ball in hand and the play will start he yells "hut" just like in street ball. I mean, it's nearly automatic.

[Joel]

C'mon, ya'll, all these hyperbolic comparisons implying this would be some radical unprecedented change for the sake of change are way over the top. The pro PAT debate's older than most people debating it now; it's the reason the pros finally added the 2 PAT: 25 years ago THGoF began the "Kicking up a Storm" chapter by saying,
It's about time someone reconsidered the extra point. No, this is not going to be another plea for the NFL to institute the two-point conversion. To our mind, the only thing sillier than a two-point conversion is the present one-pointer. And we don't think any right can come from adding the option of another wrong.
Did you catch that? Even in the late '80s the NFLs PAT had already been under attack so long three attackers felt obliged to start by saying, "We're sick of demands for a 2 PAT in the NFL."

Even in the late '80s, NFL teams tried made 1026 PATs on 1069 attempts over 3 seasons, a whopping 96% that raised the question "why do we still have this pointless extra point?" Since then, kickers have gotten even better, and their accuracy's improved from all ranged, including 19 yds from the goal post. I can usually make that kick—my NORWEGIAN WIFE can, and she'd never even SEEN an American football till two years ago. Yet I've sinced verified she can kick it 20 yds with decent accuracy, with far less training than guys paid millions/year to do nothing else.

Put it in perspective: Even 25 years ago, of 43 out of 1069 missed PATs, even 11 of those weren't MISSED, because they were never KICKED: The snapper or holder fumbled the ball and no kick was possible. Now we're down to saying everytime a PAT kick was attempted, even when there was a bad snap/hold, the kick still went in 97% of the time, even 25 years ago. The 3% of times they didn't should decide a game, much less a playoff spot—but as long as that PAT is there, a tiny fraction will be missed due to bad luck, and could lose a Super Bowl.

So I like the quoted alternative a lot; it has the advantage of showing more sportsmanship than THGoF or I ever expected from the NFL: THEY suggested dumping it entirely, but figured TV networks would never go for it because it would cost commercial time, so their second suggestion was moving the PAT kick back to the 20. The option of either 7 pts or a "double or nothing" PAT is eminently preferable to both, IMHO (for one thing, I very much like the 2 PAT, so don't want to just say, "All TDs=7 pts, period.")

[Joel]

What you call bad luck others call bad execution. This proposal makes absolutely no sense. "Well they almost always make it so let's just give it to them.".

The QB almost always gets the snap, there are pretty few bad exchanges with the QB so let's get rid of the exchange. Just let the QB start with the ball in hand and the play will start he yells "hut" just like in street ball. I mean, it's nearly automatic.
Peyton Manning bobbled the SAME snap TWICE Sunday before finally corralling it and getting off a pass (thank heaven for our line.) Bad execution? The snap was perfectly placed right in both hands; that juggling act was 100% on Manning. I guess Peyton Manning just doesn't practice enough, or have enough focus during games. ;) That's the only explanation for something that happens due to poor EXECUTION rather than LUCK. When we're talking 5 missed PATs out of >1200, that's not about execution: It's luck.

Bad luck happens; life's not deterministic (really) and anytime a probability's involved there's a discreet probability of any given outcome. Even the best catch bad breaks; Neil O'Donnell has the lowest CAREER Int% of any starting QB in history—he just had the misfortune to throw 3 at the worst possible time. Sometimes bad things happen, and it's nobodys fault; that shouldn't decide a game, playoff berth nor championship.

Take that kick I referenced in our 2006 Christmas Eve game; that wasn't bad execution: The ball was wet, so it slipped as the holder was trying to place it. Even with the wet ball, that only happened ONCE all game; he got it down for 2 other PATs and a 46 yd FG. Just not the last time, and it cost a good team a playoff berth.

[WTE]

It's a good idea, especially as proposed: 7 pts—UNLESS a team goes "double or nothing" on an end zone attempt from the 2. It preserves the possibility of a 2 PAT when needed (which HAS made pro games far more interesting than when teams down 15 or 16 pts needed 3 scores) without making it no-risk (as would be the case if 7 pts guaranteed even on missed 2 PATs.)

It's the same argument many people have been making for decades: In the old days PATs were far from automatic, and truly did reward scoring teams who managed just a little bit more; 7-6 games decided by successful PATs were common in footballs early days even when both teams scored a TD.

Kickers and equipment are MUCH better now, and the PAT is so close to automatic that the rare misses are invariably due to a bad snap or Romoesque hold. The PAT's no longer an occasional REWARD for exceptional teams who genuinely do something "extra"—it's a rare PENALTY for incredibly bad luck. The only saving grace is that it usually doesn't matter; the PAT's only worth 1 pt, so it almost never decides ANY game, let alone one with playoff implications (though it can slightly alter draft order.)

Yet even on the VERY rare occasions a missed PAT makes a huge real difference, being almost entirely luck rather than skill makes it incredibly arbitrary and unfair, like flipping a coin to decide who does and doesn't go to the playoffs (yes, I realize that's the final tiebreak, but only after exhausting a DOZEN merit-based tiebreaks.) Let's go all the way back to Christmas Eve 2006: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200612240den.htm

Some of ya'll probably remember the game; I certainly do, because I had a huge fight with my mom over whether we'd drive to her brothers house for Christmas before or AFTER the game. It was a big one: With just 2 weeks left in the season, Cincy came to Denver in tight race with each other, NY and KC for the wildcard spots. It was a back and forth; on the first scrimmage play, Cutler threw a pick returned to our 5, but 3 plays later we were bailed out when D-Will picked Palmer n the end zone (the last game I ever saw D-Will play.)

We took a 4 pt lead to the fourth quarter, extened to 7 on an Elam FG, then Cincy got a drive going, only to have Lynch cause a fumble at our 24, recovered by rookie Elvis Dumervil. We did a whole lotta nuthin', exchanged punts a few times, then Cincy got another drive going, and that one reached the end zone with 0:46 to play: 28--27 Denver, with the PAT to come and force OT unless we reached FG range in about half a minute. Yet there'd been a light drizzle off and on all day though, and the holder bobbled it, tried to run and was tackled: Game over.

After a heroic three and a half hour struggle between two very good teams, that game was won (or rather, LOST) by incredibly bad luck on a PAT. Cincinatti lost their final game to Pitt (ironically, despite a 2 TD rally that DID force OT) and missed the playoffs because of that missed PAT: They finished 8-8, a game behind the #6 seed Chiefs Cincy beat in Week 2.

It gets better though: If not for the insane rule that says division standing's the first tiebreak for wildcards CREATED TO IGNORE DIVISIONS, we would've MADE the playoffs (despite the thuggish way the 7-9 '9ers won OUR final game in OT) again, solely because of that flukey missed PAT. Beating Cincy gave us the tiebreak over all bubble teams EXCEPT KC, because they had a better divison record; unfortunately, all other bubble teams had the tiebreak over KC, so the only we made the playoffs was if KC was #5 seed, which was impossible.

What if we'd finished ahead of KC in the division though? Well, in that case, Denver would've been #6 seed and Cincy would've stayed home, solely because of a PAT missed solely due to luck. After something like that, deciding playoff teams by coin flip seems relatively fair.

Frankly, I think this may be the first good idea Goodell's ever had. Touchdowns score 7 unless you want to roll the dice and take the 50/50 shot of getting either 6 or 8. Good deal, Goodell.

Also, Praters season PAT record becomes pretty much unbreakable. :tongue:

OMG. Didn't read a word. Just OMG. Don't you have a room to paint or something with all your spare time?

[Joel]

OMG. Didn't read a word. Just OMG. Don't you have a room to paint or something with all your spare time?
Funny, that was my reaction to Belichicks postgame statement. ;)

[FanInAZ]

There's no absolute right answer that will make everyone happy. For a rule change that will completely alter how the game is played as much as this one would, I say they should put it up to a fan vote.

[Joel]

There's no absolute right answer that will make everyone happy. For a rule change that will completely alter how the game is played as much as this one would, I say they should put it up to a fan vote.
How would it alter the game? According to Goodell, out of >1200 PATs this year, just 5 were missed; this rule would negate those 5 misses—and that's ALL it would do. The 2 PAT changed the game far more, and moving the goal posts to the goal line, as well as moving them back again 40 years later. Those didn't get fan votes; why should something this trivial?

[Davii]

Trivial... if so, why the change?

[Army Bronco]

This is a bad idea. Don't need to analyze it. Its a great sport leave it alone.

[BroncoWave]

Its a great sport leave it alone.

This logic makes no sense to me. Just because it's a great sport doesn't mean you can't make it better. You gotta have a better reason than that not to change things.

[Army Bronco]

Its a great sport leave it alone.

This logic makes no sense to me. Just because it's a great sport doesn't mean you can't make it better. You gotta have a better reason than that not to change things.Perfect logic to me. Don't change it.

[aberdien]

Field goal changes are being considered because it is boring and too easy as of late. I don't have the statistics, but kickers are more accurate and kick longer field goals in the past few years than ever. Some think they should get rid of kicking altogether, some think get rid of extra points, some think narrow the goalposts.

I think it would be stupid to get rid of kicking field goals/extra points. But narrowing the goalposts (and lengthening the distance on extra points) would make it that much more exciting IMO.

[FanInAZ]

How would it alter the game? According to Goodell, out of >1200 PATs this year, just 5 were missed; this rule would negate those 5 misses. And that's all it would do. The 2 PAT changed the game far more, and moving the goal posts to the goal line, as well as moving them back again 40 years later. Those didn't get fan votes; why should something this trivial?

Because it go from choosing between a less then 50% rate of success at 2 points or an almost guaranteed 1 point, to only an 84% rate of success at 1 point if you change the goal post to Arena Football speculations.
http://www.arenafootball.com/sports/a-footbl/stats/2013/CLE.HTM (I know this is a totally low budget site to get information that pertains to a single AFL team, but it's the only one that I can find that provides any basis for the stat.)

So if the best kicker you can find only converts 79% of the time, like the AFL's Cleveland team, then they might be better off going for 2 every time if they have a better than 50% chance of converting the 2. If the AFL wasn't so low budget, I might be able to find evidence of a kick who converts more than 90% of the time without research project. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is, & they're playing a team that converts 2 points greater than 50% of the time. Now the team that's normally better off just going for 1 may be forced to go for 2 even if they're not as proficient at it. That would make the point(s) after attempts far more intriguing.

[BroncoWave]

Perfect logic to me. Don't change it.

But you aren't even addressing the issue. A blanket refusal to even consider any sort of change the NFL could make is more of an emotional stance to take than a logical one. No sport is perfect. Changes can always be made to improve things.

[Joel]

Trivial... if so, why the change?
Because, once again, it almost never matters, but the rare times it does are the very reason it shouldn't. You've got it exactly backward: Not "it's automatic, so never matters," but "it's ALMOST automatic, so SHOULD never matter." Look at it this way:

1) When a PAT's good, or the miss doesn't alter who wins, it doesn't matter: Changing the rule costs nothing.
2) On the rare occasions it's NOT good and DOES alter who wins, it matters far more than dumb luck should: Changing the rule saves a great deal.

In neither case does it cost anything, and in the rare cases it changes anything it's a huge improvement.

[Timmy!]

Oh FFS. :hang self:

[Army Bronco]

Perfect logic to me. Don't change it.

But you aren't even addressing the issue. A blanket refusal to even consider any sort of change the NFL could make is more of an emotional stance to take than a logical one. No sport is perfect. Changes can always be made to improve things.Nothing personal to you or anyone on here brother but I'm just expressing my opinion on the subject. I just don't want the game to keep changing....I'm old school like that I guess :-)

[Joel]

This is a bad idea. Don't need to analyze it. Its a great sport leave it alone.
The NFL has never worked that way. FOOTBALL never has, since before the pro version ever existed. If we followed the logic that the NFL is perfect as is, postseason games would still be illegal.


Field goal changes are being considered because it is boring and too easy as of late. I don't have the statistics, but kickers are more accurate and kick longer field goals in the past few years than ever. Some think they should get rid of kicking altogether, some think get rid of extra points, some think narrow the goalposts.

I think it would be stupid to get rid of kicking field goals/extra points. But narrowing the goalposts (and lengthening the distance on extra points) would make it that much more exciting IMO.
If we narrow the goal posts we narrow the hashes, which parallel the goal posts at all levels of football. I'm not saying that would be good, bad or indifferent, just pointing it out as a reminder.


Because it go from choosing between a less then 50% rate of success at 2 points or an almost guaranteed 1 point, to only an 84% rate of success at 1 point if you change the goal post to Arena Football speculations.
http://www.arenafootball.com/sports/a-footbl/stats/2013/CLE.HTM (I know this is a totally low budget site to get information that pertains to a single AFL team, but it's the only one that I can find that provides any basis for the stat.)

So if the best kicker you can find only converts 79% of the time, like the AFL's Cleveland team, then they might be better off going for 2 every time if they have a better than 50% chance of converting the 2. If the AFL wasn't so low budget, I might be able to find evidence of a kick who converts more than 90% of the time without research project. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is, & they're playing a team that converts 2 points greater than 50% of the time. Now the team that's normally better off just going for 1 may be forced to go for 2 even if they're not as proficient at it. That would make the point(s) after attempts far more intriguing.
The NFL's not adopting arena league goal posts, partly for the reason just stated: It won't narrow the hashes that much.

However, that wasn't the question: How would the proposal Goodell mentioned alter the game? We'd go from a choice between an ALMOST automatic PAT or 50/50 2 PAT vs. a LITERALLY automatic PAT or 50/50 2 PAT. The only difference would be elminating the bad luck penalty for the 5 out of >1200 PAT kicks missed this year, which is a small change (THIS time, because it wouldn't change any game outcomes or playoff berths; it has in the past and eventually would again.)

[Davii]

Sorry Joel, but nothing you or BW have typed here makes a compelling argument for a reason to get rid of the XP.

[Joel]

Nothing personal to you or anyone on here brother but I'm just expressing my opinion on the subject. I just don't want the game to keep changing....I'm old school like that I guess :-)
How old school? Should the forward pass be illegal, or just illegal <5 yds behind the line? Or just pre-merger old school; forward passes are legal anywhere behind the line, but there's no such thing as PI? Should goal posts be where they are now and originally, or where they were 1932-1974? Maybe just old school like it was when I was a kid, with 28 teams in 3 divisions of 5 teams (except each conferences short division,) 2 PATs are for college, and there's no replay review?

Football's not baseball; change has been integral to its nature from the start. One look at the rules Walter Camp drew up when he changed rugby to football makes that abundantly clear.

[BroncoWave]

Sorry Joel, but nothing you or BW have typed here makes a compelling argument for a reason to get rid of the XP.

"I don't like change" isn't a compelling reason to keep it.

[Timmy!]

"I don't like change" isn't a compelling reason to keep it.

Neither is "change it cause its small and it's fun to be progressive and **** with everything"

[Davii]

"I don't like change" isn't a compelling reason to keep it.

Well, number one, that's nothing I said.... So go put words in someone else's mouth.

Number two, you are the one advocating change from current rules/procedures, therefore the "burden of proof" is on you or on those suggesting the change. Convince me why it's NECESSARY other than, "man it was cool to watch that Eagle's game".

[BroncoWave]

An automatic play is just pointless IMO. It adds nothing to the excitement of football. After a TD, you can just get up and take a piss/grab a beer/whatever and get back after the commercial because you know you don't have to watch the XP.

And the comparison to the snap is ridiculous. The snap, while mostly automatic, is only a very small part of the play. You still have to actually complete the rest of the play, which is far from automatic.

I'm not necessarily saying eliminate the XP, but do SOMETHING to make it a play that is exciting and worth watching. Shouldn't every play in a football game be exciting to watch?

[Army Bronco]

Nothing personal to you or anyone on here brother but I'm just expressing my opinion on the subject. I just don't want the game to keep changing....I'm old school like that I guess :-)
How old school? Should the forward pass be illegal, or just illegal <5 yds behind the line? Or just pre-merger old school; forward passes are legal anywhere behind the line, but there's no such thing as PI? Should goal posts be where they are now and originally, or where they were 1932-1974? Maybe just old school like it was when I was a kid, with 28 teams in 3 divisions of 5 teams (except each conferences short division,) 2 PATs are for college, and there's no replay review?

Football's not baseball; change has been integral to its nature from the start. One look at the rules Walter Camp drew up when he changed rugby to football makes that abundantly clear. Me no likey ! No change!

[aberdien]

Narrowing the goal posts and lengthening the distance of extra points is more challenging and more exciting. Vote Abe 2014!

[FanInAZ]

The NFL's not adopting arena league goal posts, partly for the reason just stated: It won't narrow the hashes that much.

However, that wasn't the question: How would the proposal Goodell mentioned alter the game? We'd go from a choice between an ALMOST automatic PAT or 50/50 2 PAT vs. a LITERALLY automatic PAT or 50/50 2 PAT. The only difference would be elminating the bad luck penalty for the 5 out of >1200 PAT kicks missed this year, which is a small change (THIS time, because it wouldn't change any game outcomes or playoff berths; it has in the past and eventually would again.)

True, Goodell has purposed something completely different. The idea that I suggested is based on what some fans in this thread are in favor of. Nobody has come out & say that they're in favor of what Goodell's purposing, although your post could be construed as you supporting his idea. I didn't say you are, but that your posts suggest that you might. If so, you appear to stand alone. If not, than Goodell appears to have zero support on this site for his idea.

[dogfish]

I'm not necessarily saying eliminate the XP, but do SOMETHING to make it a play that is exciting and worth watching. Shouldn't every play in a football game be exciting to watch?

really, we need more excitement-- i know i can't pay attention for more than six seconds if every last detail isn't rivetting. . .

how about if they light the ball on fire when they kick the PATs? maybe have some lazers and shit?

[Davii]

An automatic play is just pointless IMO. It adds nothing to the excitement of football. After a TD, you can just get up and take a piss/grab a beer/whatever and get back after the commercial because you know you don't have to watch the XP.

And the comparison to the snap is ridiculous. The snap, while mostly automatic, is only a very small part of the play. You still have to actually complete the rest of the play, which is far from automatic.

I'm not necessarily saying eliminate the XP, but do SOMETHING to make it a play that is exciting and worth watching. Shouldn't every play in a football game be exciting to watch?

I wouldn't mind seeing it backed up. Might make for more 2 point attempts, etc. However, wasn't long ago we beat the Bengals because they missed an XP. There really is zero logical reason behind eliminating it, none, but I would be open to making changes to it.

[dogfish]

Narrowing the goal posts and lengthening the distance of extra points is more challenging and more exciting. Vote Abe 2014!

exciting!

maybe they should let defensive backs hit receivers again. . . that was exciting. . .

[BroncoWave]

really, we need more excitement-- i know i can't pay attention for more than six seconds if every last detail isn't rivetting. . .

how about if they light the ball on fire when they kick the PATs? maybe have some lazers and shit?

The point of sports is to entertain people. The XP is a boring, non-entertaining play. I don't get why there is so much outrage over an attempt to make that part of the game more exciting.

[Army Bronco]

"I don't like change" isn't a compelling reason to keep it.

Well, number one, that's nothing I said.... So go put words in someone else's mouth.

Number two, you are the one advocating change from current rules/procedures, therefore the "burden of proof" is on you or on those suggesting the change. Convince me why it's NECESSARY other than, "man it was cool to watch that Eagle's game".He misquoted what I said and blamed you. I still watch every xp attempt. I've seen a few mishandled snaps before. You know, they should get rid of tackling. I've seen way too many players go down after first contact. How bout you?

[Timmy!]

really, we need more excitement-- i know i can't pay attention for more than six seconds if every last detail isn't rivetting. . .

how about if they light the ball on fire when they kick the PATs? maybe have some lazers and shit?

I was thinking 3 wolves roaming the field and a herd of elk in each endzone. Maybe we could attach the lazers to the wolves?

[aberdien]

Some of you guys get so butthurt over even the mention of any sort of change, however small it may be.

[BroncoWave]

Some of you guys get so butthurt over even the mention of any sort of change, however small it may be.

To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Goodell is suggesting it. Some people hate him so much and are so convinced that he is ruining football that they will just refuse to consider any possible change he proposes, as that would mean the end of football as we know it.

[Army Bronco]

really, we need more excitement-- i know i can't pay attention for more than six seconds if every last detail isn't rivetting. . .

how about if they light the ball on fire when they kick the PATs? maybe have some lazers and shit?

I was thinking 3 wolves roaming the field and a herd of elk in each endzone. Maybe we could attach the lazers to the wolves?This is good but how about Denver hire Metallica to perform "The Four Horseman" after every TD we get next season. Yes the entire 7 min song.

[dogfish]

The point of sports is to entertain people. The XP is a boring, non-entertaining play. I don't get why there is so much outrage over an attempt to make that part of the game more exciting.

is football not entertaining enough as it is? how many millions of people watch it?

it's FINE, leave it the F alone unless there's some compelling reason for change. . . it's you dopes and your constant need for ever-increasing stimulation that makes the league constantly look for ways to increase offense and decrease defense, and i think it's making the game LESS exciting. . . pretty soon it will be just like basketball-- only the last five minutes matter, and whoever gets the ball last wins most of the time. . . some of us actually like defensive struggles and low-scoring games. . . they're more dramatic. . .

want more excitement for the average fan? send the damn cheerleaders out naked. . . leave the rules of the game alone. . . :coffee:

[Timmy!]

This is good but how about Denver hire Metallica to perform "The Four Horseman" after every TD we get next season. Yes the entire 7 min song.

That sure would be exciting.

[dogfish]

I was thinking 3 wolves roaming the field and a herd of elk in each endzone. Maybe we could attach the lazers to the wolves?

how many points is shooting an elk worth?

[BroncoWave]

is football not entertaining enough as it is? how many millions of people watch it?

it's FINE, leave it the F alone unless there's some compelling reason for change. . . it's you dopes and your constant need for ever-increasing stimulation that makes the league constantly look for ways to increase offense and decrease defense, and i think it's making the game LESS exciting. . . pretty soon it will be just like basketball-- only the last five minutes matter, and whoever gets the ball last wins most of the time. . . some of us actually like defensive struggles and low-scoring games. . . they're more dramatic. . .

want more excitement for the average fan? send the damn cheerleaders out naked. . . leave the rules of the game alone. . . :coffee:

I just don't buy the "football is great, why change it?" argument. I think several compelling arguments have been made in this thread as to why to change the XP. If this is the best response you have to those arguments, it's not much of one.

[Army Bronco]

Some of you guys get so butthurt over even the mention of any sort of change, however small it may be.

To be honest, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Goodell is suggesting it. Some people hate him so much and are so convinced that he is ruining football that they will just refuse to consider any possible change he proposes, as that would mean the end of football as we know it.This is exactly true. It is the end of football as I used to know it. I grew up watching Atwater and Smith light people up. Now they worry about a flag. Even Lynch said he couldn't play today and he is one of the best.

[FanInAZ]

how many points is shooting an elk worth?

Depends, will you be using a .22, high power rifle, compound bow or crossbow?

[dogfish]

That sure would be exciting.

i feel bad for fans in places like cleveland and jacksonville. . . those poor effers get zero excitement. . . the league should let them play with 12 men on the field until they win a division title. . . would make their games a lot more entertaining than the crap they put on the field now. . .

[Army Bronco]

This is good but how about Denver hire Metallica to perform "The Four Horseman" after every TD we get next season. Yes the entire 7 min song.

That sure would be exciting.Until we score another 7 TDs in one game...lol then they can play "Sad But True"

[aberdien]

This is exactly true. It is the end of football as I used to know it. I grew up watching Atwater and Smith light people up. Now they worry about a flag. Even Lynch said he couldn't play today and he is one of the best.

I don't know how you can fault the league for trying to prevent lifelong brain damage. Even if it may be futile (which I think it is).

[dogfish]

Depends, will you be using a .22, high power rifle, compound bow or crossbow?

a lazer. . .

[Timmy!]

how many points is shooting an elk worth?

If can hit it with the flaming ball just one.....but you get the chance to go for two. Until hitting one becomes almost automatic of course, then we will have to bring in a smaller, quicker animal.

[BroncoWave]

i feel bad for fans in places like cleveland and jacksonville. . . those poor effers get zero excitement. . . the league should let them play with 12 men on the field until they win a division title. . . would make their games a lot more entertaining than the crap they put on the field now. . .

Gotta love all the straw men in this thread.

[FanInAZ]

a lazer. . .

pistol or rifle?

[dogfish]

Gotta love all the straw men in this thread.

hey, let's set them on fire. . . it'll be exciting! :lol:

[Army Bronco]

is football not entertaining enough as it is? how many millions of people watch it?

it's FINE, leave it the F alone unless there's some compelling reason for change. . . it's you dopes and your constant need for ever-increasing stimulation that makes the league constantly look for ways to increase offense and decrease defense, and i think it's making the game LESS exciting. . . pretty soon it will be just like basketball-- only the last five minutes matter, and whoever gets the ball last wins most of the time. . . some of us actually like defensive struggles and low-scoring games. . . they're more dramatic. . .

want more excitement for the average fan? send the damn cheerleaders out naked. . . leave the rules of the game alone. . . :coffee:

I just don't buy the "football is great, why change it?" argument. I think several compelling arguments have been made in this thread as to why to change the XP. If this is the best response you have to those arguments, it's not much of one.So many games have happened where a team ties the score at the end of the game with only an xp needing to win. Sure they can go for a 2 pt conversion but the possibility of mishandling the snap or even a block can occur.

[dogfish]

pistol or rifle?

tripod-mounted cannon. . .

[BroncoWave]

hey, let's set them on fire. . . it'll be exciting! :lol:

If we're going to set things on fire, I would recommend Met Life Stadium, as they would be forced to play the Super Bowl elsewhere. :lol:

[Timmy!]

So many games have happened where a team ties the score at the end of the game with only an xp needing to win. Sure they can go for a 2 pt conversion but the possibility of mishandling the snap or even a block can occur.

That's not exciting enough. I demand more entertainment.

[dogfish]

If can hit it with the flaming ball just one.....but you get the chance to go for two. Until hitting one becomes almost automatic of course, then we will have to bring in a smaller, quicker animal.

like a ****ing cheetah. . . if you can hit the cheetah with the flaming ball, i think you should get an automatic playoff berth-- and get to take away a division rival's first round draft pick next year. . .


maybe we could also have the fans vote one team out of the league at the end of every year. . . make the NFL more like reality TV so the young-uns can really connect with it. . .

[Army Bronco]

This is exactly true. It is the end of football as I used to know it. I grew up watching Atwater and Smith light people up. Now they worry about a flag. Even Lynch said he couldn't play today and he is one of the best.

I don't know how you can fault the league for trying to prevent lifelong brain damage. Even if it may be futile (which I think it is).I don't care about their health. They chose that profession. I took grenade shrapnel to my helmet in Iraq while being a gunner. I don't want any pity, I signed up. The point is, it really is not the same NFL as I knew it.

[Army Bronco]

So many games have happened where a team ties the score at the end of the game with only an xp needing to win. Sure they can go for a 2 pt conversion but the possibility of mishandling the snap or even a block can occur.

That's not exciting enough. I demand more entertainment.Damn it, Then Metallica it is.

[Timmy!]

like a ****ing cheetah. . . if you can hit the cheetah with the flaming ball, i think you should get an automatic playoff berth-- and get to take away a division rival's first round draft pick next year. . .


maybe we could also have the fans vote one team out of the league at the end of every year. . . make the NFL more like reality TV so the young-uns can really connect with it. . .

Brady would be pregnant by the end of the first season.

[BroncoWave]

The hyperbole in this thread is through the roof. Too bad. Could have been an interesting discussion.

[Army Bronco]

like a ****ing cheetah. . . If you can hit the cheetah with the flaming ball, i think you should get an automatic playoff berth-- and get to take away a division rival's first round draft pick next year. . .


Maybe we could also have the fans vote one team out of the league at the end of every year. . . Make the nfl more like reality tv so the young-uns can really connect with it. . .

brady would be pregnant by the end of the first season.lmao

[MOtorboat]

Field goal changes are being considered because it is boring and too easy as of late. I don't have the statistics, but kickers are more accurate and kick longer field goals in the past few years than ever. Some think they should get rid of kicking altogether, some think get rid of extra points, some think narrow the goalposts.

I think it would be stupid to get rid of kicking field goals/extra points. But narrowing the goalposts (and lengthening the distance on extra points) would make it that much more exciting IMO.

You just made an argument for eliminating the forward pass.

Congratulations.

[Army Bronco]

The hyperbole in this thread is through the roof. Too bad. Could have been an interesting discussion.You just expect people to have an exact analytical reason to debate...its just peoples opinions man. Some simply don't like it because they don't want change. Should be enough. I get your points. All valid, really but I see it differently

[dogfish]

The hyperbole in this thread is through the roof. Too bad. Could have been an interesting discussion.

the point of this message board is to entertain us. . . the discussion wasn't exciting enough, so we livened it up. . . open your mind, change is good!

[aberdien]

I don't care about their health. They chose that profession. I took grenade shrapnel to my helmet in Iraq while being a gunner. I don't want any pity, I signed up. The point is, it really is not the same NFL as I knew it.
You signed up with full knowledge of the potential consequences. The NFL denied full knowledge of the consequences of playing football. The point is, it's not the same thing.

The NFL is a business, they have to look out for their brand. That means attempting to make the violent game less violent, which is nearly impossible IMO. But they are trying, and I understand why they are trying.

[aberdien]

You just made an argument for eliminating the forward pass.

Congratulations.

Except I didn't because I never said anything about the forward pass being boring and not challenging enough.

Do you have short eyesight as well?

[BroncoWave]

the point of this message board is to entertain us. . . the discussion wasn't exciting enough, so we livened it up. . . open your mind, change is good!

You're on a (t)roll right now, dog! :lol:

[Army Bronco]

I don't care about their health. They chose that profession. I took grenade shrapnel to my helmet in Iraq while being a gunner. I don't want any pity, I signed up. The point is, it really is not the same NFL as I knew it.
You signed up with full knowledge of the potential consequences. The NFL denied full knowledge of the consequences of playing football. The point is, it's not the same thing.

The NFL is a business, they have to look out for their brand. That means attempting to make the violent game less violent, which is nearly impossible IMO. But they are trying, and I understand why they are trying.It doesn't take a degree to know that if you get hit in the head you can get hurt. It doesn't take a degree to know that head injuries are serious. Edit: wait seriously bro? Football players did not know they could have long term repercussions for playing a violent game? That's nutz man.

[aberdien]

It doesn't take a degree to know that if you get hit in the head you can get hurt. It doesn't take a degree to know that head injuries are serious.

Of course not. But when the NFL straight up says that concussions and head injuries don't contribute to any long term brain injuries, how can you blame the players?

[MOtorboat]

Except I didn't because I never said anything about the forward pass being boring and not challenging enough.

Do you have short eyesight as well?

No. I read past your first sentence where you talked about how passers (err, kickers) are getting more accurate and throwing for more yards (err, kicking for more yards)...so some think passing (err, kicking) should be eliminated.

Yeah. I could make those exact arguments for the forward pass, obviously.

[BroncoWave]

No. I read past your first sentence where you talked about how passers (err, kickers) are getting more accurate and throwing for more yards (err, kicking for more yards)...so some think passing (err, kicking) should be eliminated.

Yeah. I could make those exact arguments for the forward pass, obviously.

When the forward pass becomes 99.6% accurate you could make the same argument.

[aberdien]

No. I read past your first sentence where you talked about how passers (err, kickers) are getting more accurate and throwing for more yards (err, kicking for more yards)...so some think passing (err, kicking) should be eliminated.

Yeah. I could make those exact arguments for the forward pass, obviously.

You could. But I didn't. So why bring it up?

[Army Bronco]

It doesn't take a degree to know that if you get hit in the head you can get hurt. It doesn't take a degree to know that head injuries are serious.

Of course not. But when the NFL straight up says that concussions and head injuries don't contribute to any long term brain injuries, how can you blame the players? You tell any 21-25 year old. Playing in the NFL can be dangerous....Here is 5 mil, wanna play? They will always play. Its not until they are older and rich that they will say....crap, I didn't know getting hit in the head repeatedly could have long term effects. Then football players are the dumbest people on Earth . I'm not buying it and keep the XP! Go Broncos baby!!

[BroncoWave]

You tell any 21-25 year old. Playing in the NFL can be dangerous....Here is 5 mil, wanna play? They will always play. Its not until they are older and rich that they will say....crap, I didn't know getting hit in the head repeatedly could have long term effects. Then football players are the dumbest people on Earth . I'm not buying it and keep the XP! Go Broncos baby!!

So you knew for a fact 20 years ago that concussions could cause players to commit suicide and be permanently crippled in their 40s and 50s? I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one.

[Army Bronco]

You tell any 21-25 year old. Playing in the NFL can be dangerous....Here is 5 mil, wanna play? They will always play. Its not until they are older and rich that they will say....crap, I didn't know getting hit in the head repeatedly could have long term effects. Then football players are the dumbest people on Earth . I'm not buying it and keep the XP! Go Broncos baby!!

So you knew for a fact 20 years ago that concussions could cause players to commit suicide and be permanently crippled in their 40s and 50s? I'm gonna go ahead and call bullshit on that one.No because I was 16 and I didn't know what a concussion was. Did you know that excessive typing can cause Carpal Tunnel? And suicide is a choice. Your brain doesn't cause it.

[aberdien]

Goodness.

[MOtorboat]

You could. But I didn't. So why bring it up?

It's really not that big of a deal. Passing is basically automatic.

[aberdien]

It's really not that big of a deal. Passing is basically automatic.

Yep it sure is.

http://treadinggrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tim-tebow-broncos.jpg

[MOtorboat]

Yep it sure is.

http://treadinggrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tim-tebow-broncos.jpg

We can eliminate the first three quarters, then. Those were "boring."

[dogfish]

running plays are boring-- they should make them illegal. . .

[FanInAZ]

You signed up with full knowledge of the potential consequences. The NFL denied full knowledge of the consequences of playing football. The point is, it's not the same thing.

The NFL is a business, they have to look out for their brand. That means attempting to make the violent game less violent, which is nearly impossible IMO. But they are trying, and I understand why they are trying.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that those who played prior to 2000 never watched "North Dallas 40,"* and therefore had no idea that all of these football related injuries could have such lasting effects on them.


*Part drama, comedy, and satire, North Dallas Forty is widely considered a classic sports film, giving insights into the lives of professional athletes.

Based on the semi-autobiographical novel by Peter Gent, a Cowboys wide receiver in the late 1960s, the film's characters closely resemble real-life team members of that era...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dallas_Forty

Today every single player is aware of these risks & therefore whatever the NFL did or didn't tell its former player don't apply to modern players.

[Army Bronco]

There were a ton of people o witnessed in the Army who joined prior to 9-11 and tried getting out after because they didn't think we would go to war...lol true story.

[aberdien]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that those who played prior to 2000 never watched "North Dallas 40,"* and therefore had no idea that all of these football related injuries could have such lasting effects on them.

Today every single player is aware of these risks & therefore whatever the NFL did or didn't tell its former player don't apply to modern players.

Indeed. That's why I said earlier that I believe the NFL's attempt to prevent head injuries is futile, because football is an inherently violent game. So now that everybody for sure knows the consequences, they should let them play. I still can't fault the NFL for attempting to prevent head injuries (especially after they blatantly denied the possibility of lasting effects), but I think they should eventually stop trying to prevent them and let those who want to play the violent game play it like it used to be played. I don't see that ever happening though.

Enough parents aren't letting their kids play youth football that it will never be the same game either way. So it goes.

[Joel]

Neither is "change it cause its small and it's fun to be progressive and **** with everything"
That's not the argument, at least not from me. It's USUALY small to the point of irrelevance, but that's not the problem; the problem is that on the rare occasions it's NOT small it's HUGE, solely because of luck rather than skill. I'm tellin' ya, the VERY FIRST time someone loses a playoff game because of a bobbled snap on a PAT, this thing's on the curb.

If folks just don't want football to EVER change—even slightly—for ANY reason—however great—this isn't really the best fan site for them; they'd be far better off here: http://www.allblacks.com/

Me no likey ! No change!
Oh, I think I understand: Not football the way it used to be (at any point) nor as it will be (inevitably) but as it is now and forever at this singularly perfect moment. Good luck with that. ;)

Some of you guys get so butthurt over even the mention of any sort of change, however small it may be.
It's all the more comical in football. I'd bet money the NFL hasn't gone half a dozen years out of last 40 without rules changes. The "change" is now that we have the internet everyone knows.

[Joel]

True, Goodell has purposed something completely different. The idea that I suggested is based on what some fans in this thread are in favor of. Nobody has come out & say that they're in favor of what Goodell's purposing, although your post could be construed as you supporting his idea. I didn't say you are, but that your posts suggest that you might. If so, you appear to stand alone. If not, than Goodell appears to have zero support on this site for his idea.
Stand alone? Goodell seems somewhat sympathetic, and many people have been talking about it longer than I've been alive.


I wouldn't mind seeing it backed up. Might make for more 2 point attempts, etc. However, wasn't long ago we beat the Bengals because they missed an XP. There really is zero logical reason behind eliminating it, none, but I would be open to making changes to it.
Good to see you've been reading and considering my posts in this thread before replying. As repeatedly noted, that missed PAT cost the Bengals a playoff berth, and would've GIVEN us one if the wildcard tiebreaks weren't all screwed up, all because of a wet ball. Nothing we did, nothing they did, just a slick ball. Great way to kick a team out of the playoffs, and admit another. :rolleyes:

[Joel]

This is exactly true. It is the end of football as I used to know it. I grew up watching Atwater and Smith light people up. Now they worry about a flag. Even Lynch said he couldn't play today and he is one of the best.
*shrugs* I grew up watching Kevin Smith shut DOWN WRs hand checking them way downfield back when the rules just said DBs could only make contact once beyond the LoS (ANYWHERE.) Then they changed the rules and he went from being one of the NFLs top CBs to just another dude. Football changes, constantly, and always has. You can't preserve it in amber any more than I, my dad or anyone else could.

Sammy Baugh will always have the record for most interceptions in a game (6) and the few people still living who remember those games will tell you in a heartbeat ironman football was a lot better and more exciting. It's not coming back though; they wrongly and terribly changed football during WWII because of the draft, declaring teams could make more than one substitution per quarter and the player who left didn't have stay out until the NEXT quarter, after which the specialist killed ironman football.

To the people who say we don't need more offense and less defense: I agree. However, to the people who just view this PAT discussion (which had NOTHING to do with the quanity/quality of offense/defense) as an excuse to attack ALL rules changes and imply we need less offense and more defense because that's more "dramatic:" It's not 1919 anymore, and the common titanic 7-6 and 6-0 defensive struggles of yesteryear aren't returning. In some ways, that IS too bad: Back then PATs WERE about skill rather than luck.

[Army Bronco]

[QUOTE=Timmy!;2121443]Neither is "change it cause its small and it's fun to be progressive and **** with everything"
That's not the argument, at least not from me. It's USUALY small to the point of irrelevance, but that's not the problem; the problem is that on the rare occasions it's NOT small it's HUGE, solely because of luck rather than skill. I'm tellin' ya, the VERY FIRST time someone loses a playoff game because of a bobbled snap on a PAT, this thing's on the curb.

If folks just don't want football to EVER change—even slightly—for ANY reason—however great—this isn't really the best fan site for them; they'd be far better off here: http://www.allblacks.com/

Me no likey ! No change!
Oh, I think I understand: Not football the way it used to be (at any point) nor as it will be (inevitably) but as it is now and forever at this singularly perfect moment. Good luck with that. ;)
[QUOTE]

Why do you act like because I disagree with you I'm wrong? Could it be possible that, God Forbid, your opinion is wrong? Its my opinion, not you, not Abe, not BW are going to change it. Many other people have come on here and gave reasons as to why they don't like it...oh well. They don't ******* like it. Does not make them wrong. My opinion may not be the right one but its mine and its not "bullshit" like I was told earlier just because its different. I even said that I understand their point but I don't agree....So you all that want to just say we are wrong because we don't agree then FU. This ain't the USSR or North Korea. We can all just agree to disagree, debate, have fun, but don't ******* try to ridicule me for what I believe. I'm not mad but this is becoming a trend in these forums. Its getting old as shit. and another thing Joel, just because you write encyclopedia Britannica worths in a single post does NOT make you right buddy.

[Joel]

You tell any 21-25 year old. Playing in the NFL can be dangerous....Here is 5 mil, wanna play? They will always play. Its not until they are older and rich that they will say....crap, I didn't know getting hit in the head repeatedly could have long term effects. Then football players are the dumbest people on Earth . I'm not buying it and keep the XP! Go Broncos baby!!
Except the NFL had doctors telling them as early as 1952 that even ONE concussion can have serious longterm effects, and the Leagues response was to cover it up, deny it when the doctors went to the press, and even commission counterstudies "proving" there was no risk. You tell ANYONE playing in the NFL can cause them to murder their family and kill themselves 30 yrs after they retire, and someone else with a bunch of letters after his name says, "That's BS, and here a bunch of data to prove it," they're gonna believe the guy dumping truckloads of money on them.

It's not the same at all, man. The Army didn't tell you, "Get hurt or killed? Whoever told you that is full of crap; look at all these field reports—and sign here...."

[FanInAZ]

Stand alone? Goodell seems somewhat sympathetic, and many people have been talking about it longer than I've been alive.

So where are they? Yes, there has been talk about getting rid of FGs altogether as well, but I'm talking about this specific plan. If someone else on this site supports this specific plan, please speak up.

[Joel]

Why do you act like because I disagree with you I'm wrong? Could it be possible that, God Forbid, your opinion is wrong? Its my opinion, not you, not Abe, not BW are going to change it. Many other people have come on here and gave reasons as to why they don't like it...oh well. They don't ******* like it. Does not make them wrong. My opinion may not be the right one but its mine and its not "bullshit" like I was told earlier just because its different. I even said that I understand their point but I don't agree....So you all that want to just say we are wrong because we don't agree then FU. This ain't the USSR or North Korea. We can all just agree to disagree, debate, have fun, but don't ******* try to ridicule me for what I believe. I'm not mad but this is becoming a trend in these forums. Its getting old as shit. and another thing Joel, just because you write encyclopedia Britannica worths in a single post does NOT make you right buddy.
Opinions aren't right or wrong any more than colors are: They're just opinions; like navels, everyone has one, and everyone ELSES stinks.

I'm not ridiculing you, really. But "no change"? Seriously? Football's ALWAYS changed, from the very start; that's not an opinion, it's documented undeniable FACT, and anyone disputing it is factually wrong. If someone says 2+2=5 it's not an opinion and they are wrong; that simple.

You're upset football isn't played like when you were a kid? Guess what: When you were a kid football wasn't played like when I was, and when I was a kid it wasn't played like when my dad was. You want football played like it was when you were a kid? WHICH YEAR?! The rules changed pretty much EVERY SEASON!

Since we're talking PATs, how do you feel about the 2 PAT? I was 20 when the NFL added the two-point conversion; it didn't destroy the game I grew up with, and neither would this.


So where are they? Yes, there has been talk about getting rid of FGs altogether as well, but I'm talking about this specific plan. If someone else on this site supports this specific plan, please speak up.
Oh, I stand alone ON THIS SITE. Very possibly. I can live with that; it's not the whole world; even if it were, I could still live with that. Agreeing with the majority ensures popularity, not veracity.

[Timmy!]

That's not the argument, at least not from me. It's USUALY small to the point of irrelevance, but that's not the problem; the problem is that on the rare occasions it's NOT small it's HUGE, solely because of luck rather than skill. I'm tellin' ya, the VERY FIRST time someone loses a playoff game because of a bobbled snap on a PAT, this thing's on the curb.

I http://www.allblacks.com/

.

You're not catching on. The fact that it's almost automatic, but that sometimes, for whatever reason it might be, the kick is missed/blocked/romo'd/whatever is exactly why you DON'T just take away pats. Luck/fate are a part of the game. Trying to eliminate it because its not "skill" is completely moronic. If you HAD to **** with it, making it a longer kick wouldn't be the end of the world, but just making it automatic is going epically full retard.

[Joel]

I'm sorry, ya'll, but I can't help feeling (i.e. MY opinion) a lot of this is coming from a mindset that says the world started and was perfect the day I was born but has been going to Hell since I started shaving daily. Even the NFL ITSELF can't keep track of all their rules changes over the years: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000224872/article/evolution-of-the-rules-from-hashmarks-to-crackback-blocks

The 1956 entry conveniently omits that years rule against putting radios in players helmets so coaches can send QBs plays from the sidelines, mainly because every NFL QB for at least a decae has had a radio in his helmet so coaches can send QBs plays from the sidelines. NO CHANGE EVAH111? So we go back to 12 man rugby, with blocking and forward passes banned, and every play started by a scrum instead of a scrimmage? Guess our old QB's more popular than previously believed. ;)

Life is change, but, more importantly here SO IS FOOTBALL. Always has been and almost certainly always will. Get used to it; the world won't stand stilll for you any more than it did for your parents. Know who REALLY hated change in the NFL? George Preston Marshall, for reasons that continue to cause the Redskins grief long after his death; that's not a desirable standard.

[Joel]

You're not catching on. The fact that it's almost automatic, but that sometimes, for whatever reason it might be, the kick is missed/blocked/romo'd/whatever is exactly why you DON'T just take away pats. Luck/fate are a part of the game. Trying to eliminate it because its not "skill" is completely moronic. If you HAD to **** with it, making it a longer kick wouldn't be the end of the world, but just making it automatic is going epically full retard.
Then why not just replace it with a coin flip? Hell, why not just call the whole GAME after the coin flip; whoever wins the toss, wins the game, and the 12 teams who win the most coin tosses go to the coin toss tournament, where the team that never loses a coin toss is crowned Coin Toss Champion of the World. Nothing beats the elite athleticism of sports, right? ;)

Yeah, luck'll always be a factor: It just shouldn't be the DECIDING factor in a game, especially not a game that decides playoffs. Again, the first time a missed PAT costs a team a Super Bowl (and, left unchanged, it eventually will; law of averages) you can kiss it goodbye. The proposal Goodell mentioned is eminently preferable.

[Army Bronco]

No...don't try to say what I'm thinking. I like the XP. Why, because I simply do. I like old Metallica, I don't listen to any of their new stuff. They say they are changing and evolving to be a better band. Good for them. I think they suck now and I just won't listen to them. If the NFL changes to a point where I don't like it then I will stop watching it also. I used to LOVE UFC. I won't watch a single fight now because I lost respect for certain things I saw. Simple. Things can be just that.... simple.

[Timmy!]

Then why not just replace it with a coin flip? Hell, why not just call the whole GAME after the coin flip; whoever wins the toss, wins the game, and the 12 teams who win the most coin tosses go to the coin toss tournament, where the team that never loses a coin toss is crowned Coin Toss Champion of the World. Nothing beats the elite athleticism of sports, right? ;)

Yeah, luck'll always be a factor: It just shouldn't be the DECIDING factor in a game, especially not a game that decides playoffs. Again, the first time a missed PAT costs a team a Super Bowl (and, left unchanged, it eventually will; law of averages) you can kiss it goodbye. The proposal Goodell mentioned is eminently preferable.

But sometimes luck IS the deciding factor in a football game Joel, much as it sometimes is in life. Sometimes shit happens. :drjoelimpression:

[dogfish]

is the free throw an exciting play?

should basketball get rid of the free throw?



is the fair catch an exciting play? could it, somehow, magically be made more entertaining for the fans? did the XFL actually have it right?

[Joel]

No...don't try to say what I'm thinking. I like the XP. Why, because I simply do. I like old Metallica, I don't listen to any of their new stuff. They say they are changing and evolving to be a better band. Good for them. I think they suck now and I just won't listen to them. If the NFL changes to a point where I don't like it then I will stop watching it also. I used to LOVE UFC. I won't watch a single fight now because I lost respect for certain things I saw. Simple. Things can be just that.... simple.
You said you're upset because the NFL isn't the game you grew up with, but the game you grew up with wasn't the game you grew up with: It changed pretty much annually.

Based on the link above, I was wrong: Since 1973 there have been a total of 7 years the NFL didn't change the rules, so I guess I would've lost the bet they haven't gone more than half a dozen seasons in the last 40 without a rules change. People who want a static NFL can't preserve it in amber nor even tar, but only in their own minds: Because it never existed anywhere else.


But sometimes luck IS the deciding factor in a football game Joel, much as it sometimes is in life. Sometimes shit happens. :drjoelimpression:
Yes, sometimes it unavoidably is, but it should never be by DESIGN. Again, the NFLs final playoff (and draft) tiebreak is a coin flip—but there's a reason it's the LAST tiebreak.

[Joel]

Football can't be the way it was because football was NEVER the way it was. 140 years ago some KID who thought he was SMARTER than everyone else (at YALE, no less) CHANGED rugby—and it's been changing ever since. It probably always will. I wish some of the old timers would stop by to weigh in with their opinion on this proposed radical change that would end football as we know it. Perhaps to tell us they don't want the NFL to be like it was when they were kids because the Denver Broncos didn't exist. But, hey, making a 99.5% PAT 100%: THAT'S a HUGE change. ;)

[BroncoWave]

is the free throw an exciting play?

should basketball get rid of the free throw?



is the fair catch an exciting play? could it, somehow, magically be made more entertaining for the fans? did the XFL actually have it right?

The fair catch is only part of a play. It's not an entire play. Once again, not an equivalent comparison. But you knew that. As for free throws, give me a call when they are made 99% of the time.

[BroncoWave]

Someone on another site made a really good point on this that I hadn't considered. If the XP never existed, and a proposal were made to add it this year, would anyone think that was a worthwhile thing to add to the game? I would think no.

[Shazam!]

I don't like this. They should just move it back if they don't want it to be so automatic, but to get rid of it, I'm very much against this.

[BroncoWave]

Mike Greenberg just made a really good point as well. He thinks the ball should be moved to the 1 on extra points. That gives teams more of an incentive to go for 2, as it's closer to the goal line. That could be an interesting idea.

[Northman]

Bah, why the hell are there so many proposals to change the game coming out this winter? Anyway, I don't want them to remove the extra point. What I would like them to do is move it back about 20 yards to make it at least more than a chipshot FG. This keeps special teams involved on all scores but makes it at least challenging. There is a lot of coaching strategy involved in the decision to kick the extra point and go for two as a close game progresses through the second half.

Agreed.

The extra point is just fine with the option to go for two. No need to try and get all creative. There was nothing more exciting than a few years ago when Denver hosted Cincy and the Bengals scored to get within a point of tying the game with us and Housyourmama did his salute to mock us and then they messed up the extra point try. THAT was exciting to watch.

[Northman]

Perfect logic to me. Don't change it.

Agreed.

[Northman]

But you aren't even addressing the issue. A blanket refusal to even consider any sort of change the NFL could make is more of an emotional stance to take than a logical one. No sport is perfect. Changes can always be made to improve things.

His point is he doesnt want to improve things. He (and i agree) is saying its just fine the way it is.

[BroncoWave]

His point is he doesnt want to improve things. He (and i agree) is saying its just fine the way it is.

Using this logic, adding the forward pass and instant replay were bad ideas.

[BroncoWave]

Hey North, if Goodell came out today and said that the rules on hitting QBs and defenseless WRs would be relaxed and defenders would be free to make more big hits, would you be ok with that rule change?

[Northman]

really, we need more excitement-- i know i can't pay attention for more than six seconds if every last detail isn't rivetting. . .

how about if they light the ball on fire when they kick the PATs? maybe have some lazers and shit?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


Got a better idea.

Just narrow the teams down to 15 guys per team with 1 guy from each team on the field when ball is in play. Leave the ball in the middle of the field and each has to run to it. Once they have the ball they have to get to the opposing endzone to score. Not only do they have to avoid the other guy when trying to get there but they have to make it too the endzone before a dozen unleashed tigers are set upon them. NOW THATS EXCITING!!!!!!!!!

[Northman]

Some of you guys get so butthurt over even the mention of any sort of change, however small it may be.

Thats an asinine way to look at it abe, even for you. Just because people enjoy and find the game exciting as it is does not equate to butthurt. There is nothing wrong with the game as it stands so who cares that people want to keep it that way?

[BroncoWave]

Thats an asinine way to look at it abe, even for you. Just because people enjoy and find the game exciting as it is does not equate to butthurt. There is nothing wrong with the game as it stands so who cares that people want to keep it that way?

I'm going to keep this post saved for the next time you bitch about current safety rules.

[Northman]

The hyperbole in this thread is through the roof. Too bad. Could have been an interesting discussion.

Guess you need to douse it with some FIRE!!!!!!

[Northman]

You're on a (t)roll right now, dog! :lol:

He is, he is totally destroying you guys in this thread. Its hilarious AND exciting. ;)

[BroncoWave]

He is, he is totally destroying you guys in this thread. Its hilarious AND exciting. ;)

He's evading the topic and using strawmen. If that's what you consider "destroying" someone, I will gladly debate with you any day and win every time.

[Northman]

We can eliminate the first three quarters, then. Those were "boring."

So basically Tim Tebow is exciting and Peyton Manning is boring. :lol:

[Northman]

Using this logic, adding the forward pass and instant replay were bad ideas.

Perhaps to someone who remembers the game from that period thought so. For me, the game is fine the way it is. For future generations of fans who will be watching the game with players playing in rocket boots it will be fine for them at that time. I live in the present and like it the way it is. You dont, so what.

[BroncoJoe]

LOL at wave. If you don't agree with me, you're a strawman and can't provide an interesting discussion. Get over yourself already.

I bet Romo would love the rule change. Fact is, while it is nearly automatic, it's not 100%. And, wave, the kick is only one part of the play as well. You have to line up properly. The ball has to be snapped properly. The holder has to get the ball down properly. The kicker has to kick the ball through the upright.

When a PAT is missed, it is a big deal. Even though it's nearly automatic, it is still a valuable part of the game and can make a difference. A team scores two fieldgoals resulting in a 6-0 lead. Should we just give the opponent 7 when they score a TD at the end of the game? Doesn't seem right to me.

[BroncoWave]

LOL at wave. If you don't agree with me, you're a strawman and can't provide an interesting discussion. Get over yourself already.

Another strawman. Brilliant! :lol:

[Northman]

Hey North, if Goodell came out today and said that the rules on hitting QBs and defenseless WRs would be relaxed and defenders would be free to make more big hits, would you be ok with that rule change?

Of course. Because that was the way the game was played when i started watching football initially. But, if we all of a sudden took away the XP because its "too easy" or reverted back to not throwing the ball i would stop watching the sport and call it a day. I enjoy the game the way that it is and enjoyed it over the last 30 years but constantly changing for the sake of changing just gets old and eventually it will just turn me off from the sport altogether. For some like you, joel, abe, etc you will enjoy what he does but for others they wont. In some ways it wont even bother me, just give me more time to do other stuff in my life but if he wants to keep me as a viewer than he might rethink twice about trying to alter the game i love currently.

[BroncoWave]

Of course. Because that was the way the game was played when i started watching football initially. But, if we all of a sudden took away the XP because its "too easy" or reverted back to not throwing the ball i would stop watching the sport and call it a day. I enjoy the game the way that it is and enjoyed it over the last 30 years but constantly changing for the sake of changing just gets old and eventually it will just turn me off from the sport altogether. For some like you, joel, abe, etc you will enjoy what he does but for others they wont. In some ways it wont even bother me, just give me more time to do other stuff in my life but if he wants to keep me as a viewer than he might rethink twice about trying to alter the game i love currently.

Ok, so you've now admitted that you DON'T think football is perfect the way it currently is and that there are rule changes that could currently benefit it. You're no longer allowed to use "football is fine the way it is, don't change it" as your logic against making a rule change considering the XP.

[Northman]

LOL at wave. If you don't agree with me, you're a strawman and can't provide an interesting discussion. Get over yourself already.



Its his calling card, always has been.

[BroncoJoe]

Another strawman. Brilliant! :lol:

Very typical response.

[BroncoWave]

Its his calling card, always has been.

Notice North I haven't accused you of using a strawman because you are at least making an attempt at legitimate discussion. Saying "if you want more excitement just add lions and fire to the field" is a strawman and not actually adding to the discussion.

[BroncoWave]

Very typical response.

How about trying to debate my point without exaggerating it to ridiculous extremes. Is that too difficult?

[BroncoJoe]

How about trying to debate my point without exaggerating it to ridiculous extremes. Is that too difficult?

Did you even read my post?

[BroncoWave]

Did you even read my post?

I stopped after the first line. Perhaps try leading with good content instead of your pot-shot at me.

[Northman]

Ok, so you've now admitted that you DON'T think football is perfect the way it currently is and that there are rule changes that could currently benefit it. You're no longer allowed to use "football is fine the way it is, don't change it" as your logic against making a rule change considering the XP.

Of course i can, i just did a number of times. Some changes you just deal with, others you dont. Its not black or white like you try to paint it.

[BroncoJoe]

I stopped after the first line. Perhaps try leading with good content instead of your pot-shot at me.

Once again, a typical response from you.

[Northman]

Notice North I haven't accused you of using a strawman because you are at least making an attempt at legitimate discussion. Saying "if you want more excitement just add lions and fire to the field" is a strawman and not actually adding to the discussion.

Because there is no discussion to be had here. You as a fan either want it or you dont. Going out of your way (not you personally) to say that its because people dislike Goodell is not a good argument and is insulting to anyone who just doesnt like the rule proposal because they like the current system in place.

[BroncoWave]

Because there is no discussion to be had here.

Sure there is. I have made and seen others make multiple posts discussion alternate options to eliminating the XP entirely such as moving the ball to the 1 to encourage teams to go for 2 more and those posts have been largely ignored. There is always a good discussion to be had.

[BroncoWave]

And if there is no discussion to be had, why enter the thread in the first place? Seems like kinda a waste of time to post about a topic in which you think a legitimate discussion can't be had.

[Northman]

And if there is no discussion to be had, why enter the thread in the first place? Seems like kinda a waste of time to post about a topic in which you think a legitimate discussion can't be had.

You can state an opinion about something without going into a long debate as too why you feel that way. Happens all the time on this board G.

[BroncoWave]

You can state an opinion about something without going into a long debate as too why you feel that way. Happens all the time on this board G.

I think you like these long, drawn out discussions more than you let on. ;)

[Northman]

I think you like these long, drawn out discussions more than you let on. ;)

Im actually pretty indifferent. Some of it is boredom, other is i end up doing this where i have to explain why i simply like the game as it stands. lol

[BroncoWave]

Im actually pretty indifferent. Some of it is boredom, other is i end up doing this where i have to explain why i simply like the game as it stands. lol

Well, you don't HAVE to. I'm not pinning you down to your keyboard! :D

[Broncolingus]

I say just leave it as is...

...NFL can focus on improving the quality of referees and use/non-use of instant replays if they really want address things that will improve the game.

JMO...

[Joel]

Mike Greenberg just made a really good point as well. He thinks the ball should be moved to the 1 on extra points. That gives teams more of an incentive to go for 2, as it's closer to the goal line. That could be an interesting idea.
No way. 2 PATs are right at 50/50 already, and have been from the start; that makes the expected value of a PAT (~1*1) identical to that of a 2 PAT (~0.5*2.) THAT should not change.


Agreed.

The extra point is just fine with the option to go for two. No need to try and get all creative. There was nothing more exciting than a few years ago when Denver hosted Cincy and the Bengals scored to get within a point of tying the game with us and Housyourmama did his salute to mock us and then they messed up the extra point try. THAT was exciting to watch.
Yes, but a slick ball shouldn't cost a team a playoff spot (as it did there) or give it to another (as it nearly did there.) To continue this threads hyperbolic theme, having the QBs play Russian roulette at midfield would be exciting TV, too (and save a bundle on cap space!) but that doesn't make it a good idea.


Using this logic, adding the forward pass and instant replay were bad ideas.
Football died the day some kid changing it for changes sake decided FGs weren't worth 5 pts or TDs worth 4 anymore. That and the forward pass took the "foot" out of football. I don't even recognize this game anymore. :(


Hey North, if Goodell came out today and said that the rules on hitting QBs and defenseless WRs would be relaxed and defenders would be free to make more big hits, would you be ok with that rule change?
No rule changers EVER!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOILKHmZBwc


LOL at wave. If you don't agree with me, you're a strawman and can't provide an interesting discussion. Get over yourself already.

I bet Romo would love the rule change. Fact is, while it is nearly automatic, it's not 100%. And, wave, the kick is only one part of the play as well. You have to line up properly. The ball has to be snapped properly. The holder has to get the ball down properly. The kicker has to kick the ball through the upright.

When a PAT is missed, it is a big deal. Even though it's nearly automatic, it is still a valuable part of the game and can make a difference. A team scores two fieldgoals resulting in a 6-0 lead. Should we just give the opponent 7 when they score a TD at the end of the game? Doesn't seem right to me.
Actually, the vast majority of the times a PAT is missed it's competely irrelevant. We missed one against NE a few years ago, but since they beat us 41-23 I doubt it was a factor.

The problem is missed PATs are so rare (<1%) ANYWAY, and those that matter consequently even MORE rare, the times that matter are the very times they shouldn't. If something only EVER happens 0.5% of the time, but happens to occur on one of the even FEWER occasions it COSTS A GAME, that is the worst of nothing but pure dumb LUCK.

Yes, luck will always—unfortunately—decide some games, but it's not the ideal, and if there's a way to reduce that element without harming the game, there's no reason we shouldn't and every reason we should. Sometimes bad luck causes car accidents that injure and even kill people, but we don't say, "Well, stuff happens; these new-fangled seat belts and air bags would destroy the vehicles I've loved since childhood! Wait, no, seatbelts are fine, 'cause we had them when I was a kid, but not airbags: Cars should NEVER CHANGE!!!"

[Northman]

I say just leave it as is...

...NFL can focus on improving the quality of referees and use/non-use of instant replays if they really want address things that will improve the game.

JMO...

Now THIS i can get on board with.

[BroncoJoe]

Yes, luck will always—unfortunately—decide some games, but it's not the ideal, and if there's a way to reduce that element without harming the game, there's no reason we shouldn't and every reason we should. Sometimes bad luck causes car accidents that injure and even kill people, but we don't say, "Well, stuff happens; these new-fangled seat belts and air bags would destroy the vehicles I've loved since childhood! Wait, no, seatbelts are fine, 'cause we had them when I was a kid, but not airbags: Cars should NEVER CHANGE!!!"

If there's a chance it'll be missed, that's still better than a 100% guarantee of the one point.

That's my point. It won't increase going for two anymore than the score does.

[BroncoWave]

No way. 2 PATs are right at 50/50 already, and have been from the start; that makes the expected value of a PAT (~1*1) identical to that of a 2 PAT (~0.5*2.) THAT should not change.

You are right, but with the EV being the same, coaches NEVER go for it unless they have to, because just kicking it exposes them to less criticism. If you give the 2-pt conversion a higher EV than an XP, you might finally see some coaches ballsy enough to go for it every time. And you still leave the XP in place virtually unchanged which pleases the purists. I see this as a win-win.

[Joel]

Because there is no discussion to be had here. You as a fan either want it or you dont. Going out of your way (not you personally) to say that its because people dislike Goodell is not a good argument and is insulting to anyone who just doesnt like the rule proposal because they like the current system in place.
By the same token, someone going out of their way to say I support it because I'll rubber stamp any and all Goodells ideas just because I want to change the game is a poor argument insulting to anyone who's complained at length about many of his asinine rule changes. As noted elsewhere, I consider this less a case of "Continue to improve our lives, Great Leader!" than "Even blind squirrels find a nut sometimes."

Getting back to uck: One reason I really hate all the defenseless rules is because they're just trying to inflate ratings with big 'splosions at the expense of helping very weak teams beat much better ones through sheer dumb luck: Luck>skill, and I HATE that. There's a reason we've seen so many more huge comebacks in the past ten years, and it's not because of parity or improved play: It's because a team getting stomped by a vastly superior opponent can just chuck the ball up for grabs 50 yds downfield knowing a catch or PI is more likely than an incomplete or Int.

That's not football; it's not even sports: It's just dumb luck. All thanks to a series of Goodells awful rules changes. I agree with the notion they may have conditioned some people to reflexively dismiss ANY Goodell suggestion out of hand, but just because MOST of Goodells changes have been awful in effect and intent doesn't make THIS one any less the good idea it is.

[Joel]

If there's a chance it'll be missed, that's still better than a 100% guarantee of the one point.

That's my point. It won't increase going for two anymore than the score does.
So? I don't want to increase going for 2; that screws with game balance (the same reason just dropping the point-after altogether would: Because then a TD's worth EXACTLY 2 FGs instead of just a bit more, which, incidentally, was one of the best arguments against the NFL adopting the 2 PAT.)

My point is a 0.5% probable event shouldn't change the outcome of a game, but if it CAN'T unless it ALSO occurs in one of the rare occasions a game's decided by one point it DEFINITELY shouldn't. Over 1000 PATs from '84-'86, only 43 were missed and even 42 of those didn't matter: It was literally a 1 in 1000 miss that cost someone a game. Actually, LESS than 1 in 1000, and it not only cost a game, it clinched the AFCW for us and the NFCE for NY.

I'm not saying it was a big deal, but, y'know, it was the year of The Drive. Kinda strange to think of the most storied game in Broncos history—the beginning of the teams most glorious era and 5 SB appearances: All because of dumb luck on a PAT by a team with such awful execution they won the SB the following year.


You are right, but with the EV being the same, coaches NEVER go for it unless they have to, because just kicking it exposes them to less criticism. If you give the 2-pt conversion a higher EV than an XP, you might finally see some coaches ballsy enough to go for it every time. And you still leave the XP in place virtually unchanged which pleases the purists. I see this as a win-win.
It's a game balance issue: Of COURSE coaches would go for 2 more often if the EV were higher—that's precisely the reason it shouldn't be.

As for pleasing the purists: Moving the PAT half the distance to the goal line wouldn't please the purists; NO change EVER pleased ANY purist. I can't recall a team ever going for 2 solely because of a penalty on a PAT anyway; if they were going for 2, they were going for 2, and if not, not. It's purely a matter of the numbers, but if you give them the PAT from the 1 EVERYTIME, smart coaches will nearly ALWAYS go for it: Even when they fail, each failure can be offset by a later success, so if the success rate's significantly higher than 50/50, you're playing with house money.

I couldn't care less if it's faster, higher scoring, more exciting, draws better ratings, etc. None of that justifies fixing what ain't broke (in this case, breaking it MORE.)

However, I don't want to exclude one good team from the playoffs and admit another because of how wet the ball is—or, more to the point, I don't want to do it AGAIN. I don't want something like The Drive AND The Fumble to start because we led by a TD late in SD when they scored and a passing seagull happened to take a crap at JUST the right time and spot on the PAT. I mean, OK, it would help us and hurt a division rival, so I'd laugh, but I'd feel guilty about it, and rightly so.

[Army Bronco]

nulldon't you dare tell me what the Army told me or didn't tell me. You don't know shit about what my knowledge was prior to going in. With your little comment about what I was and wasn't told, you lost all credibility in my book. Were you a damn fly on the wall at my recruiters station ? Do you know what kind of family I even come from? My grandfather took 2 hills from the Chinese in Korea with nothing but bayonets in 1950. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed up. Every dead body, every IED, every shot I fired, I knew and don't need ****** pity from a ******* forums novelists or anyone ever ..you got that. Ive seen my grandfathers PTSD and I've gone through it myself for years....I'm not a little bitch who wants to sue the Army or even better yet the country of Iraq because " I used to work there"

[Army Bronco]

No...don't try to say what I'm thinking. I like the XP. Why, because I simply do. I like old Metallica, I don't listen to any of their new stuff. They say they are changing and evolving to be a better band. Good for them. I think they suck now and I just won't listen to them. If the NFL changes to a point where I don't like it then I will stop watching it also. I used to LOVE UFC. I won't watch a single fight now because I lost respect for certain things I saw. Simple. Things can be just that.... simple.
You said you're upset because the NFL isn't the game you grew up with, but the game you grew up with wasn't the game you grew up with: It changed pretty much annually.

Based on the link above, I was wrong: Since 1973 there have been a total of 7 years the NFL didn't change the rules, so I guess I would've lost the bet they haven't gone more than half a dozen seasons in the last 40 without a rules change. People who want a static NFL can't preserve it in amber nor even tar, but only in their own minds: Because it never existed anywhere else.


But sometimes luck IS the deciding factor in a football game Joel, much as it sometimes is in life. Sometimes shit happens. :drjoelimpression:
Yes, sometimes it unavoidably is, but it should never be by DESIGN. Again, the NFLs final playoff (and draft) tiebreak is a coin flip—but there's a reason it's the LAST tiebreak.Find my post where I said I was upset?

[BroncoWave]

don't you dare tell me what the Army told me or didn't tell me. You don't know shit about what my knowledge was prior to going in.

Is he wrong? Did the Army in fact tell you it wouldn't be dangerous when you joined?

[BroncoJoe]

Is he wrong? Did the Army in fact tell you it wouldn't be dangerous when you joined?

Is this a serious question?

[BroncoWave]

Is this a serious question?

I agree, it's a question with an obvious answer. Which would make my next question to AB, why is he so up in arms about that post that Joel made?

[BroncoWave]

don't you dare tell me what the Army told me or didn't tell me. You don't know shit about what my knowledge was prior to going in. With your little comment about what I was and wasn't told, you lost all credibility in my book. Were you a damn fly on the wall at my recruiters station ? Do you know what kind of family I even come from? My grandfather took 2 hills from the Chinese in Korea with nothing but bayonets in 1950. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed up. Every dead body, every IED, every shot I fired, I knew and don't need ****** pity from a ******* forums novelists or anyone ever ..you got that. Ive seen my grandfathers PTSD and I've gone through it myself for years....I'm not a little bitch who wants to sue the Army or even better yet the country of Iraq because " I used to work there"

What the hell are you bitching about? Joel's point was that your Army comparison isn't really valid to this issue, because the Army likely didn't lie to you about the risks of joining the Army like the NFL lied to it's players about risks.

[Mike]

I had a 30 page dissertation on why I do not like this proposal...but it was mostly full of straw men, logical fallacies, and sharks with lazers.

And it is more entertaining to watch people get all stupid and flustered when I just say...I don't like the proposal.

[Northman]

I had a 30 page dissertation on why I do not like this proposal...but it was mostly full of straw men, logical fallacies, and sharks with lazers.

And it is more entertaining to watch people get all stupid and flustered when I just say...I don't like the proposal.

Sharks with lazers is very exciting.

[Army Bronco]

Is this a serious question?

I agree, it's a question with an obvious answer. Which would make my next question to AB, why is he so up in arms about that post that Joel made? I'm tired of his ass acting like he knows every ******* thing. For him to tell me what my recruiter said or didn't say?. Really. I've reenlisted 3 times since being at war and then became an officer. I know what the consequences are. I have friends who are no longer here and others who I've seen who have been injured. Those who were injured don't blame the Army. Its the ******* military brother....football is football

[CoachChaz]

Do it like they do in pee-wee and middle school football. Line up for the conversion and if you run it in, you get 1 point and if you pass it in, you get 2.

[BroncoWave]

Its the ******* military brother....football is football

You are the one who brought up the military comparison in this thread.

[Army Bronco]

Its the ******* military brother....football is football

You are the one who brought up the military comparison in this thread.You are either blind or simply didn't read or just don't understand. Make an argument to your point... cool. I can completely accept his or your knowledge of football to be greater than mine. But just because I use the military to make my point doesn't mean he can act like he knows more bout that or even what my personal experience was. Thats some BS. And if he really thinks he knows about all this then does he really know about everything he claims

[BroncoWave]

You are either blind or simply didn't read or just don't understand. Make an argument to your point... cool. I can completely accept his or your knowledge of football to be greater than mine. But just because I use the military to make my point doesn't mean he can act like he knows more bout that or even what my personal experience was. Thats some BS. And if he really thinks he knows about all this then does he really know about everything he claims

So you are allowed to use the military to make your point but someone else is not allowed to call you out on it. Got it.

[Nomad]

Do it like they do in pee-wee and middle school football. Line up for the conversion and if you run it in, you get 1 point and if you pass it in, you get 2.

I thought of the same thing along those lines. I really don't care one way or the other, but this way ^^^^, it'll make the game interesting. Games evolve and change to make them more interesting and competitive, just think when the WCO was introduced, I'm sure folks were grit tin their teeth at the thought.

[BroncoWave]

I thought of the same thing along those lines. I really don't care one way or the other, but this way ^^^^, it'll make the game interesting. Games evolve and change to make them more interesting and competitive, just think when the WCO was introduced, I'm sure folks were grit tin their teeth at the thought.

You aren't allowed to want the game to be more interesting or exciting. Apparently it makes you some lunatic with a short attention span who wants to see lions and fire on the field.

[Northman]

I'm tired of his ass acting like he knows every ******* thing. For him to tell me what my recruiter said or didn't say?. Really. I've reenlisted 3 times since being at war and then became an officer. I know what the consequences are. I have friends who are no longer here and others who I've seen who have been injured. Those who were injured don't blame the Army. Its the ******* military brother....football is football

I feel for you brother but you cant let Joel's postings get to you like that. I know he can kind of come off condescending but i really dont think he means to insult you or military people in general. He just seems like a eccentric type of guy when he posts so it can tend to rub people the wrong way, you just have to kind of dust it off.

[BroncoWave]

I feel for you brother but you cant let Joel's postings get to you like that. I know he can kind of come off condescending but i really dont think he means to insult you or military people in general. He just seems like a eccentric type of guy when he posts so it can tend to rub people the wrong way, you just have to kind of dust it off.

I think Joel's point was that comparing it to the military isn't really a good comparison because the Army likely doesn't lie about or cover up the risks to potential recruits like the NFL did to it's players. I think that is a fair point to make. I'm not sure why AB is taking that point so personally.

[Northman]

You aren't allowed to want the game to be more interesting or exciting. Apparently it makes you some lunatic with a short attention span who wants to see lions and fire on the field.

Dont be dissing the lions and fire idea. That is quite exciting.

[Northman]

I think Joel's point was that comparing it to the military isn't really a good comparison because the Army likely doesn't lie about or cover up the risks to potential recruits like the NFL did to it's players. I think that is a fair point to make. I'm not sure why AB is taking that point so personally.

I dont know if the military lies about possible harm but when i look at both its not really rocket science to know that injuries can happen. You learn from an early age playing in sports that you can be hurt at any point, i didnt need anyone to tell me that it may or may not happen i just knew from experience from playing.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

There is no other professional sport that has been changed as much as pro football. I agree with changes for player's safety. But NOT with changes as to how football has been played since day one.

[BroncoWave]

There is no other professional sport that has been changed as much as pro football. I agree with changes for player's safety. But NOT with changes as to how football has been played since day one.

Football didn't have the forward pass on day one.

[Army Bronco]

You are either blind or simply didn't read or just don't understand. Make an argument to your point... cool. I can completely accept his or your knowledge of football to be greater than mine. But just because I use the military to make my point doesn't mean he can act like he knows more bout that or even what my personal experience was. Thats some BS. And if he really thinks he knows about all this then does he really know about everything he claims

So you are allowed to use the military to make your point but someone else is not allowed to call you out on it. Got it.and if people don't agree with you they are straw men . BTW, did it hurt when you were nailed to the cross ?

[BroncoWave]

Peter King just called the time between a TD and the end of the XP the most wasted 45 seconds in sports. Pretty good way of putting it.

[BroncoWave]

and if people don't agree with you they are straw men . BTW, did it hurt when you were nailed to the cross ?

Not what I said at all. Look up what a straw man is then read some of the posts in this thread. They fit the definition of it to the t.

[Army Bronco]

I'm tired of his ass acting like he knows every ******* thing. For him to tell me what my recruiter said or didn't say?. Really. I've reenlisted 3 times since being at war and then became an officer. I know what the consequences are. I have friends who are no longer here and others who I've seen who have been injured. Those who were injured don't blame the Army. Its the ******* military brother....football is football

I feel for you brother but you cant let Joel's postings get to you like that. I know he can kind of come off condescending but i really dont think he means to insult you or military people in general. He just seems like a eccentric type of guy when he posts so it can tend to rub people the wrong way, you just have to kind of dust it off.Dude..you are right!. I know he is not a bad dude. Wooosaba!!..lol

[BroncoJoe]

I just don't see how eliminating it would make the game more exciting. Any play can be exciting. Punts, TD's, FG's, kickoffs. If they want to move it back a bit, I'd be OK with that so it does make it more difficult. Or, leave it where it is, and make it from one of the hashmarks. That would make the goalposts "narrower" while leaving the FG tries alone.

I don't know - if they want to make the game more exciting, eliminate all the stupid TV timeouts or reduce the play clock to 20 seconds.

[Army Bronco]

and if people don't agree with you they are straw men . BTW, did it hurt when you were nailed to the cross ?

Not what I said at all. Look up what a straw man is then read some of the posts in this thread. They fit the definition of it to the t.Since you want to take things out of context. Amen my Lord. I apologize for not going to church in a long time. Don't hold your breath though. So did your resurrection hurt?

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Football didn't have the forward pass on day one.

OK - so it was added in 1933. So, I should have said "for many, many years", rather than "on day one"

1933
The NFL, which long had followed the rules of college football, made a number of significant changes from the college game for the first time and began to develop rules serving its needs and the style of play it preferred. The innovations from the 1932 championship game-inbounds line or hashmarks and goal posts on the goal lines-were adopted. Also the forward pass was legalized from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage.

http://www.sportsattic.com/araig/NflRulesHistory.htm

[Ravage!!!]

Why not just eliminate the Center to QB exchange? Then the center doesn't have to worry about snapping the ball, we can REALLY run a faster paced offense and get more plays in... and MORE scoring

[BroncoWave]

Why not just eliminate the Center to QB exchange? Then the center doesn't have to worry about snapping the ball, we can REALLY run a faster paced offense and get more plays in... and MORE scoring

What does any of that have to do with keeping/altering/getting rid of the extra point?

[Ravage!!!]

What does any of that have to do with keeping/altering/getting rid of the extra point?

:lol: :lol:

[BroncoWave]

:lol: :lol:

Thought so.

[Army Bronco]

Why not just eliminate the Center to QB exchange? Then the center doesn't have to worry about snapping the ball, we can REALLY run a faster paced offense and get more plays in... and MORE scoringThis is so true. They should also get rid of defensive lineman too. Its such a waste of 4 seconds when a runner goes for no gain. Why impede his progress with something like a defense? ...it'll be more exciting and fun. Scores will go up to the hundreds.

[BroncoWave]

We've jumped from strawman fallacies to slippery slope fallacies. Gotta love it!

[Army Bronco]

I think Joel's point was that comparing it to the military isn't really a good comparison because the Army likely doesn't lie about or cover up the risks to potential recruits like the NFL did to it's players. I think that is a fair point to make. I'm not sure why AB is taking that point so personally.

I dont know if the military lies about possible harm but when i look at both its not really rocket science to know that injuries can happen. You learn from an early age playing in sports that you can be hurt at any point, i didnt need anyone to tell me that it may or may not happen i just knew from experience from playing.I know right. As far as I remember, football helmets still have warning labels....or even better, why wear helmets at all. Its safe, right?

[Mike]

To me, the point after is really just an after thought. Of all things that are being changed this one doesn't really bother me too much.

[Mike]

We've jumped from strawman fallacies to slippery slope fallacies. Gotta love it!

People have differing opinions. Why can't you just get that instead of treating people like they are idiots when they disagree with you?

[BroncoJoe]

What does any of that have to do with keeping/altering/getting rid of the extra point?


Thought so.

Isn't a major point to add excitement? Discussing alternative ways to increase drama and/or excitement (words directly from the article) is appropriate.

Unless you're Wave and people don't agree with your stance.

[BroncoWave]

Isn't a major point to add excitement? Discussing alternative ways to increase drama and/or excitement (words directly from the article) is appropriate.

Unless you're Wave and people don't agree with your stance.

The "excitement" angle is a PART of my argument. It's not my entire argument. If it were my whole argument, Rav would have a point. My main argument for changing the XP is that it's a pointless play that doesn't really add anything to the game.

The snap is only a small part of a play, and getting rid of it would fundamentally alter the game. Changing the XP wouldn't really do that at all.

[BroncoJoe]

What does any of that have to do with keeping/altering/getting rid of the extra point?


The "excitement" angle is a PART of my argument. It's not my entire argument. If it were my whole argument, Rav would have a point. My main argument for changing the XP is that it's a pointless play that doesn't really add anything to the game.

The snap is only a small part of a play, and getting rid of it would fundamentally alter the game. Changing the XP wouldn't really do that at all.

It doesn't matter what YOUR argument is. It's what is being discussed as a whole, by the forum community.

Referencing the orange part - ask Dallas or the Seahawks.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N1NFC2NQK50/UOmkreYCVpI/AAAAAAAAGH4/je24m_Zi7yo/s1600/Romo_Tony2_fumbledsnap_Cowboys_vs_Seahawks.jpg

[Ravage!!!]

This is so true. They should also get rid of defensive lineman too. Its such a waste of 4 seconds when a runner goes for no gain. Why impede his progress with something like a defense? ...it'll be more exciting and fun. Scores will go up to the hundreds.

Also, lets start adding more poinst to longer FGs, so that they fit with people's fantasy league rules. 40-50 yrds, should be 4 poitns. Anything over 50-60 is 5 poitns.. and if you boot the 60 yrder, you get 6. NOW we will see people go for those long FGs more often and eliminate that BORING punt.

In Fact... we should ELIMINATE the punt altogether. I mean, its boring, rarely get a good run back.. and think how exciting it would be if every team had to go for it on 4th down!

[BroncoJoe]

Also, lets start adding more poinst to longer FGs, so that they fit with people's fantasy league rules. 40-50 yrds, should be 4 poitns. Anything over 50-60 is 5 poitns.. and if you boot the 60 yrder, you get 6. NOW we will see people go for those long FGs more often and eliminate that BORING punt.

In Fact... we should ELIMINATE the punt altogether. I mean, its boring, rarely get a good run back.. and think how exciting it would be if every team had to go for it on 4th down!

Rav, that doesn't fit BTB's argument, so it's INVALID!!!

[BroncoWave]

Welp, this thread has devolved into full-blown circlejerk. You guys have fun. :)

[BroncoJoe]

Welp, this thread has devolved into full-blown circlejerk. You guys have fun. :)

Typical.

[Joel]

don't you dare tell me what the Army told me or didn't tell me. You don't know shit about what my knowledge was prior to going in. With your little comment about what I was and wasn't told, you lost all credibility in my book. Were you a damn fly on the wall at my recruiters station ? Do you know what kind of family I even come from? My grandfather took 2 hills from the Chinese in Korea with nothing but bayonets in 1950. I knew exactly what I was getting into when I signed up. Every dead body, every IED, every shot I fired, I knew and don't need ****** pity from a ******* forums novelists or anyone ever ..you got that. Ive seen my grandfathers PTSD and I've gone through it myself for years....I'm not a little bitch who wants to sue the Army or even better yet the country of Iraq because " I used to work there"
Whoa, I'm not trying to tell you your life, just saying you knowing what you were getting into doesn't automically mean NFL players do. That was YOUR comparision, not mine; I just pointed out the critical difference: Doctors didn't go to the Pentagon 60 years ago with studies showing war is dangerous only to have the military dismiss them, call them liars when they went public, then cook up a bunch of "studies" of their purportedly proving war is safe.

Now, whether there are comparisons between PTSD and life-long brain disorders from even a SINGLE concussion—and the NFL and Pentagon response to knowledge of that—I won't presume to debate with you because, no, I'm not qualified. If you say the Pentagon's always denied, concealed and discredited proof of soldiers can face PTSD for the rest of their lives (like the NFL did with life-long concussion effects,) but everyone who enlists has always known DESPITE that disinformation campaign, I'll take your word.


Find my post where I said I was upset?

Well, the clearest of several examples is this one:
This is exactly true. It is the end of football as I used to know it. I grew up watching Atwater and Smith light people up. Now they worry about a flag. Even Lynch said he couldn't play today and he is one of the best.
I think (dunno) BrocoWave might've been being (slightly) hyperbolic himself when he said people are mad Goodell's destroying football as we know it, but evidently you feel Goodell's literally doing just that. The irony is I GENERALLY agree; defenseless football is no fun, and it's about ratings, not safety, but even if it WERE about safety, it's making the game LESS safe as players go low to avoid fines and suspensions, even though they know low hits are MORE likely to injure (hence the ton of ACL injuries the past few years.)

We have new safety rules that INCREASE injury and straitjacket defenders; out-freakin-standing, Goodell. Again, THIS rule had nothing to do with that, and would improve without harming it.


So you are allowed to use the military to make your point but someone else is not allowed to call you out on it. Got it.
Sure seems that way. Next time I make an analogy someone blows up I'll be sure say they have no right to comment on it: If they can't state anything agreeing, don't state anything at all. :tongue:


I dont know if the military lies about possible harm but when i look at both its not really rocket science to know that injuries can happen. You learn from an early age playing in sports that you can be hurt at any point, i didnt need anyone to tell me that it may or may not happen i just knew from experience from playing.
We've always known injuries can happen in both sports and the military. However, we've NOT always known just ONE concussion can seriously affect someones brain their whole LIFE—but the NFL's known since 1952: That's when neurologists told them. Yet the NFL hid it, denied it when the doctors went public, and cooked up a bunch of "data" that "disproved" undeniable fact.

Frankly, that DOES sound like some of the allegations I've heard and read against the Pentagon about PTSD, but no, I can't say firsthand everyone who enlists or accepts a commission is briefed on longterm PTSD effects. I know my grandfather had vivid nightmares till the day he died where he saw the faces of German soldiers on troop trains he strafed, and he lived into his seventies after lying about his age to enlist. I will say this: If EVERYONE KNOWS about longterm PTSD effects BEFORE (i.e. WITHOUT) enlisting, I'm part of everyone.

For what it's worth though, I wasn't trying to tell someone about their own life without knowing a thing about it. The analogy just seemed inapt, so I said so.

[dogfish]

i'm bored by any play that doesn't score. . . i think they should score every time. . . scoring is exciting-- all that other running around is just pointless, i lose interest when they do that. . . they should score every time, so it's more entertaining!

[Northman]

Also, lets start adding more poinst to longer FGs, so that they fit with people's fantasy league rules. 40-50 yrds, should be 4 poitns. Anything over 50-60 is 5 poitns.. and if you boot the 60 yrder, you get 6. NOW we will see people go for those long FGs more often and eliminate that BORING punt.

In Fact... we should ELIMINATE the punt altogether. I mean, its boring, rarely get a good run back.. and think how exciting it would be if every team had to go for it on 4th down!

And kickoff returns now (since they are very few) should be 10 pts automatically. Makes the game more exciting.

[Northman]

i'm bored by any play that doesn't score. . . i think they should score every time. . . scoring is exciting-- all that other running around is just pointless, i lose interest when they do that. . . they should score every time, so it's more entertaining!

Maybe we should just do away with defense altogether?

[Hawgdriver]

Am I the only one that wants to fast-forward through the extra point?

[Army Bronco]

We've jumped from strawman fallacies to slippery slope fallacies. Gotta love it!

People have differing opinions. Why can't you just get that instead of treating people like they are idiots when they disagree with you? Don't talk to the savior in that way...Repent!!

[Joel]

There is no other professional sport that has been changed as much as pro football. I agree with changes for player's safety. But NOT with changes as to how football has been played since day one.
That's a good argument: It doesn't dismiss change out of hand, but insists it be justified and not alter an original integral part of football, which the PAT is. However, I contend this change:

1) Is justified, because luck alone shouldn't lose games/playoff berths because something that only happens on 0.5% of ALL PATs not only happens, but when a team's down just a single point.

2) Changes nothing except 1) because the PAT would still be there and still worth exactly 1 pt. 0.5% of PATs is an insignificant part of football—until it kicks someone out of the playoffs (again.)

3) The "day one" PAT was actually a relatively challenging kick; teams often missed it and games routinely ended 7-6 (or 6-0) as a result. The day one PAT was truly someting EXTRA for teams good enough to score a TD, a bonus for a good team that proved itself even better. Now it's so automatic it rewards NOTHING: It just PENALIZES horrible luck. Penalizing a team that just scored a TD and did nothing "wrong" but have horrible luck seems genuinely wrong to me.


Football didn't have the forward pass on day one.
True, but it did have the PAT in its current form (though I'm not sure of the original yardage) and that's all she's defending, so it's a valid point that far.


OK - so it was added in 1933. So, I should have said "for many, many years", rather than "on day one"

1933
The NFL, which long had followed the rules of college football, made a number of significant changes from the college game for the first time and began to develop rules serving its needs and the style of play it preferred. The innovations from the 1932 championship game-inbounds line or hashmarks and goal posts on the goal lines-were adopted. Also the forward pass was legalized from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage.

http://www.sportsattic.com/araig/NflRulesHistory.htm
Actually, no, it's been legal since 1905, after 19 DEATHS in ONE SEASON prompted TR to threaten a federal ban, and colleges responded by

1) Requiring 7 men on the line of scrimmage,
2) Legalizing forward passes from 5 yds behind the line and
3) Creating the NCAA (though it didn't bear that name until 1910, IIRC.)

The 1932 NFL Championship only changed the "5 yds behind the line" part, because at the end of a scoreless 4th quarter Bronko Nagurski started to run, changed his mind, backed up and threw a TD to Red Grange, even though everyone in Chicago Stadium could see he was nowhere NEAR 5 yds behind the line. Portsmouth raised Hell about it all through the offseason before the NFL retroactively ruled the pass legal for all time.

Guess folks DON'T read long posts; I was sure I covered all this early in the thread (and linked sportsattic; it only goes through '03, btw.) :tongue: Maybe just in the Football 101 thread on rules changes. Another change from that 1932 NFL Championship: The 1924 ban on postseason games was reversed (there's a funny story behind that ban, too, unless you're a Bears fan.)

[Army Bronco]

i'm bored by any play that doesn't score. . . i think they should score every time. . . scoring is exciting-- all that other running around is just pointless, i lose interest when they do that. . . they should score every time, so it's more entertaining!

Maybe we should just do away with defense altogether? Lol that's what I said.

[BroncoWave]

Am I the only one that wants to fast-forward through the extra point?

Yep, you sure are. Getting rid of the extra point would just flat out ruin all that is sacred about football. We might as well shut down the league if we can't have our beloved extra point! Oh the humanity.

[BroncoJoe]

Yep, you sure are. Getting rid of the extra point would just flat out ruin all that is sacred about football. We might as well shut down the league if we can't have our beloved extra point! Oh the humanity.

Troll.

And you wonder why no one wants to have any sort of discussion with you.

[Northman]

Am I the only one that wants to fast-forward through the extra point?

You want to fast forward through a play that takes literally 3 seconds to execute? :lol:

[Joel]

Why not just eliminate the Center to QB exchange? Then the center doesn't have to worry about snapping the ball, we can REALLY run a faster paced offense and get more plays in... and MORE scoring
Agreed: Changing ANY of footballs original rules DESTROYS it; ever since centers started handing balls back QBs instead of pushing it back with their FEET, "football" has been DEAD.

I don't CARE if it makes snaps and play infinitely smoother and easier: Don't change basic original rules because it's convenient, looks better or moves faster. Football is played with FEET and won with DEFENSE, not these new-fangled high-scoring offenses posting 9 or 10 pts in ONE GAME. Disgusting. This just ain't the game my great-great-grandpappy growed up with; thanks a lot, Camp, you overeducated whippersnapper! :mad:

[BroncoWave]

Troll.

And you wonder why no one wants to have any sort of discussion with you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, because you, dog, rav, and others haven't been trolling in this thread at aaaaalllllllllllllll. Riiiiiiiiiight. :lol:

[camdisco24]

Interesting..... Not sure if the NFL should be looking at this. For years NFL and NASCAR have been 1 and 2 in viewing/attendance numbers. I know they dont compare at ALL, but when NASCAR started messing with their points system and changing rules, their numbers started to fall and still havent recovered. Say what you want about the sport, but it was highly successful under the "old" system.

I dont think the NFL should even consider going down the same road because you shouldnt mess with something that isnt broken! Let it be Goodell!

[Joel]

Am I the only one that wants to fast-forward through the extra point?
No, a lot people have been urging it for at least 40 years. Maybe before; I wasn't alive then, so can't say.

[BroncoJoe]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Yeah, because you, dog, rav, and others haven't been trolling in this thread at aaaaalllllllllllllll. Riiiiiiiiiight. :lol:

I can only speak for myself, and no. I have not.

[BroncoJoe]

No, a lot people have been urging it for at least 40 years. Maybe before; I wasn't alive then, so can't say.

Define "a lot".

[BroncoWave]

Interesting..... Not sure if the NFL should be looking at this. For years NFL and NASCAR have been 1 and 2 in viewing/attendance numbers. I know they dont compare at ALL, but when NASCAR started messing with their points system and changing rules, their numbers started to fall and still havent recovered. Say what you want about the sport, but it was highly successful under the "old" system.

I dont think the NFL should even consider going down the same road because you shouldnt mess with something that isnt broken! Let it be Goodell!

By the same token, baseball refuses to change anything ever and is dying.

There is not a single person who will stop watching football if they get rid of the XP. Not one.

[Joel]

Interesting..... Not sure if the NFL should be looking at this. For years NFL and NASCAR have been 1 and 2 in viewing/attendance numbers. I know they dont compare at ALL, but when NASCAR started messing with their points system and changing rules, their numbers started to fall and still havent recovered. Say what you want about the sport, but it was highly successful under the "old" system.

I dont think the NFL should even consider going down the same road because you shouldnt mess with something that isnt broken! Let it be Goodell!
NASCAR died the day they banned Ethel; if ain't broke, don't... what was I saying...? :tongue:

[BroncoJoe]

By the same token, baseball refuses to change anything ever and is dying.

There is not a single person who will stop watching football if they get rid of the XP. Not one.


SPORTS More: MLB
The Theory That Baseball Is Dying Is A Total Myth


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-theory-that-baseball-is-dying-is-a-total-myth-2013-10#ixzz2r3nRV82S

[camdisco24]

By the same token, baseball refuses to change anything ever and is dying.

There is not a single person who will stop watching football if they get rid of the XP. Not one.

Agreed about the XP, no one would stop watching for that... BUT I just dont want Goodell to start messing with other systems in place, like the playoffs for example. I dont want the NFL to be about entertaining people who arent ALREADY entertained by what the sport is.

[Joel]

Define "a lot".

It's about time someone reconsidered the extra point. No this is not going to be another plea for the NFL to institute the two-point conversion.

That was 25 years ago, the first lines on the kicking chapter in what's still the seminal NFL stats analysis book. Long enough the NFL 2 PAT didn't exist yet, but the authors were already sick of people saying the NFL should use it instead of the PAT kick. It goes on:


To our mind, the only thing sillier than a two-point conversion is the present one-pointer. And we don't think any right can come from adding the option of another wrong.

The extra point has been around since Walter Camp had acne. Except for the occasional two-point pitch, nobody thinks about it anymore. Lord knows, no one watches it. At least not on television. More sandwiches are buttered, more beers are opened, more toilets are flushed across America than at any other moment during the game. The halftime-score show is more interesting, the coin flip has more suspense, and the commercials have more action.

If the cameras panned the crowd at the game, you'd probably see (if you watched) that most of the people there are looking at their game programs, looking at girls, looking at guys, looking at guys looking at girls—anything to avoid wasting eyesight on the extra point.
Get the, er, "point."? Three seconds? For the play, sure, but
The set up time for the PAT is when they show you all those replays of the touchdown. You know, "Here's the catch as you just saw it,; here it is from the other side; from field level; from the blimp."

If they couldn't show 'em while the extra point is being set up, the TV people would have to cut into the commercials after the extra point. TV gives up commercials about as easily as the Russian army gave up Stalingrad.
Even 25 years ago, the conclusion was "We'll keep the PAT kick because of ratings—not for the show, but for the ads." The networks pay the NFL a crapton of money for the exclusive right to air those games, and only turn a profit from showing ads during those games: They're not giving up a single one. Maybe losing the PAT will reduce TD replays, which would be too bad: They're actually more attention-worthy than the PAT.

[BroncoWave]

Agreed about the XP, no one would stop watching for that... BUT I just dont want Goodell to start messing with other systems in place, like the playoffs for example. I dont want the NFL to be about entertaining people who arent ALREADY entertained by what the sport is.

Maybe it's different for me because I am a diehard, but I can't even fathom what it would take to get me to stop watching the NFL. Whatever that point is, the NFL isn't even close to it, even if they did implement all of the proposed changes we have heard floated around in recent years.

[camdisco24]

Maybe it's different for me because I am a diehard, but I can't even fathom what it would take to get me to stop watching the NFL. Whatever that point is, the NFL isn't even close to it, even if they did implement all of the proposed changes we have heard floated around in recent years.

I'm right there with you on that... it would take a lot for me too. But I would hate to see the NFL become about entertaining the masses instead of simply watching amazing athletes compete in an amazing sport.

[Northman]

Im the opposite of you and Wave Cam. Im already starting to wane on the NFL but this has been going on since 07' after they had started pulling back the reigns on what defenders can do in challenging receivers and flagging for big hits. Messing around with the XP would probably make me stop watching as i just rather have them play the way they have for years. I love football but not to the point where i become uninterested in all the changes they want to make. If i want to watch crazy football with weird and obscure rules and scoring plays i would watch Arena football which i have zero interest in.

[Ravage!!!]

What hasn't been explained, is the benefit. Fastforwarding through the xp is all you got? Why? It takes 3 seconds, is that REALLY soooooo boring to you that you just want to rush through it? I mean, heavens forbid we let those with attention deficet sit for an additional 30 seconds!! Where is the GAIN in this move?

BTB, you were "ok" with the idea of eliminating the KO, right? I mean, if the NFL "brain trusts" suggests it, it MUST be a good idea. After all, as you've said...they are smart people that know more than we do. The KO is dangerous, lets just put the ball at the 20 and eliminate it. Not to mention, the GAIN of not having to sit through those "boring" KO returns. That is, unless you are Seattle that needed that big return to beat the 49ers in the NFC Championship.

Honestly, you think I'm joking about removing the punt. WHy not? How many big punt returns in a game make a difference? They generally all end in blocks-in-the-back anyway, right? No punts. That way we don't have to 'sit through' the punts, the KOs, nor the XPs and fastforward this game directly to the good stuff. Screw the special teams. Don't need 'em. Lets just make this game 2 phases, and fast forward through the 3rd. Scoring will go up, and those that "get bored" sitting through the 3 second XP kick will absolutely LOVE not having to sit through and ENTIRE punt-and-return play.

[Hawgdriver]

You want to fast forward through a play that takes literally 3 seconds to execute? :lol:

Yes. I also don't like traffic.

The extra point play takes up 30 seconds of TV time, see for yourself. (random NFL game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB14zY1JW9w), extra point viewing begins at 17:30, cuts to commercial at 17:59.)

That's a good 30 seconds of advertising revenue that could be in the owners' pockets.

[Northman]

The reality is if the NFL really wants to just have excitement and lots of scoring they should just adopt all the rules and play of the Arena league. Throw up nets to where the player can grab it and run. As mentioned before make the FG poles narrower. As Rav points to dont have any punts, just have them go for it on 4th down all the time. You would get some crazy scores that way. I mean, why beat around the bush if that is the direction you are trying to go in anyway?

[Northman]

Yes. I also don't like traffic.

The extra point play takes up 30 seconds of TV time, see for yourself. (random NFL game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB14zY1JW9w), extra point viewing begins at 17:30, cuts to commercial at 17:59.)

That's a good 30 seconds of advertising revenue that could be in the owners' pockets.

Wow, that must really suck the life out of you. 30 seconds..... :lol:

[Hawgdriver]

Why is everyone so heated about this nonsense? It's like people are being threatened with losing custody of their children.

Personally, I like the idea, but it's not as if my opinion or yours affects the outcome.

I also like all of you. Relax, we are going to the Superbowl. Hardly a time to get bitchy with each other. Time to be united!!

[Hawgdriver]

Wow, that must really suck the life out of you. 30 seconds..... :lol:

The extra point has never done much for me, but if it's really important to you and everyone else, so be it.

[Ravage!!!]

Yes. I also don't like traffic.

The extra point play takes up 30 seconds of TV time, see for yourself. (random NFL game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB14zY1JW9w), extra point viewing begins at 17:30, cuts to commercial at 17:59.)

That's a good 30 seconds of advertising revenue that could be in the owners' pockets.

They actually get more advertising WITH the XP in the game as they have to adverts before the XP, then go BACk to advertising after the XP...of which would be eliminated if the players simply lined up for the KO after all TDs.

[Northman]

The extra point has never done much for me, but if it's really important to you and everyone else, so be it.

Importance really has nothing to do with it. Its just preference.

[Hawgdriver]

They actually get more advertising WITH the XP in the game as they have to add before the XP, go BACk to advertising, after the XP...of which would be eliminated if the players simply lined up for the KO after all TDs.

Either way, they are going to make us watch Arnold play ping pong.

[Hawgdriver]

Importance really has nothing to do with it. Its just preference.

I can dig it. I respect your preference and everyone else's. It's just that mine's right. :lol:

I'd like to see a poll, I'm curious what everyone thinks. I'm kinda surprised it's as sacred as it is--which is cool. Very. Cool. With me.

I can watch endless reruns of the show "Watch the ball sail perfectly down the middle of the uprights as the defender gets oh so close but never actually gets a hand on the ball." It's good programming.

Dammit I let my sarcasm off the leash again. Bad hawG!

[BroncoJoe]

I can dig it. I respect your preference and everyone else's. It's just that mine's right. :lol:

I'd like to see a poll, I'm curious what everyone thinks. I'm kinda surprised it's as sacred as it is--which is cool. Very. Cool. With me.

I can watch endless reruns of the show "Watch the ball sail perfectly down the middle of the uprights as the defender gets oh so close but never actually gets a hand on the ball." It's good programming.

Dammit I let my sarcasm off the leash again. Bad hawG!

Sacred probably isn't the right word. I'll try to elaborate my stance.

It's not 100%. Sure, there were only 5 or so missed out of 1,200 attempts this year, but that's part of the excitement. It's not a SURE thing to make. And as I've stated before, if the XP was done away with, the Cowboys would have advanced a few years ago and not the Seahawks. ANY chance it can make a difference makes it worthwhile to me.

I would be interested in making the XP a bit harder - moving it back 10 yards, or even moving it to the hashmark so it's more difficult. I just don't want to see it eliminated because it's "nearly" 100%. Until it is 100%, it's still an important play and one that is not automatic.

[Hawgdriver]

Well expressed Joe.

[Joel]

Sacred probably isn't the right word. I'll try to elaborate my stance.

It's not 100%. Sure, there were only 5 or so missed out of 1,200 attempts this year, but that's part of the excitement. It's not a SURE thing to make. And as I've stated before, if the XP was done away with, the Cowboys would have advanced a few years ago and not the Seahawks. ANY chance it can make a difference makes it worthwhile to me.

I would be interested in making the XP a bit harder - moving it back 10 yards, or even moving it to the hashmark so it's more difficult. I just don't want to see it eliminated because it's "nearly" 100%. Until it is 100%, it's still an important play and one that is not automatic.
The Cowboys didn't miss a PAT, they missed a FG from PAT range. That may seem a small difference, but it's not: Dallas hadn't SCORED. We're talking about a play where a team JUST SCORED A TD, but only gets 6 pts for it because they have bad luck on the snap, the hold, a seagull swoops over and takes a dump RIGHT in front of the holder RIGHT as the ball arrives. What a STUPID way to decide which of two GOOD teams goes to the playoffs or advances once there: What a horrible Super Bowl ending that would be.

The other difference, incidentally, is that because Dallas' kick was a FG try instead of a PAT, it was worth 3 pts, not 1; a 19 yd kick that's worth 3 pts gives the rare miss 3X the expected value of a PAT, and not after they'd already scored anyway: Hell, yeah, make 'em kick it. No one (even Goodell) is suggesting making all FGs inside the 5 automatic or anything like that.

[Joel]

What hasn't been explained, is the benefit. Fastforwarding through the xp is all you got? Why? It takes 3 seconds, is that REALLY soooooo boring to you that you just want to rush through it? I mean, heavens forbid we let those with attention deficet sit for an additional 30 seconds!! Where is the GAIN in this move?

BTB, you were "ok" with the idea of eliminating the KO, right? I mean, if the NFL "brain trusts" suggests it, it MUST be a good idea. After all, as you've said...they are smart people that know more than we do. The KO is dangerous, lets just put the ball at the 20 and eliminate it. Not to mention, the GAIN of not having to sit through those "boring" KO returns. That is, unless you are Seattle that needed that big return to beat the 49ers in the NFC Championship.

Honestly, you think I'm joking about removing the punt. WHy not? How many big punt returns in a game make a difference? They generally all end in blocks-in-the-back anyway, right? No punts. That way we don't have to 'sit through' the punts, the KOs, nor the XPs and fastforward this game directly to the good stuff. Screw the special teams. Don't need 'em. Lets just make this game 2 phases, and fast forward through the 3rd. Scoring will go up, and those that "get bored" sitting through the 3 second XP kick will absolutely LOVE not having to sit through and ENTIRE punt-and-return play.
If you flip to the front of the thread, the gain is my biggest argument for making TDs automatically worth 7 unless a team choose a 2 PAT that gives them nothing with a miss:

Not because a 99.5% accuracy rate means PATs don't matter, but because the 0.01% of times it changes who wins means it SHOULDN'T matter. Literally 1 in 1000 chance of a PAT costing a game (and that was with less accurate mid-eighties kickers.) That probably explains why the last time I know of a missed PAT singlehandedly kicking a team out of the playoffs (and nearly kicking IN another) was when Cincy missed a PAT against us at the end of regulation on Christmas Eve 2006. Seven years for a missed PAT that mattered—and it mattered WAY too much.

A wet ball on ONE play cost Cincy a playoff spot, gave one to KC (whom they beat in Week 2, but finished a game behind thanks to that PAT) and nearly gave us one, too. That is PURE DUMB LUCK, and luck alone shouldn't decide ANY game if we can prevent it without harming the sport. We can. Easily.

I still don't see what's so appalling earth-shatteringly awful about that. It would only change 0.5% of PATs, and PATs are what percentage of all plays? There's, what about, 100 in a game, give or take? Say, on average about 6 or 7 of 'em are TDs? So 0.5% of 7%=0.035% of all plays would be affected. And only 1 out of 43 missed PATs (again, in the less accurate mid-eighties) changed a games outcome. That's... um... I'm just gonna rough estimate.

99.9997% of NFL plays would be unchanged: That's purer than Ivory—but people act like it would make the NFL synchronized swimming. They must've been livid when the NFL did things like expand the league (three times, not counting the Saints and Falcons at the merger,) expand the season, add PI, add-remove-add replay, add the 2 PAT.

American football's changed so much—nearly EVERY year—most rugby fans mock the name, yet people are lighting torches and grabbing pitchforks over turning a 99.5% PAT into a 100% PAT.


They actually get more advertising WITH the XP in the game as they have to adverts before the XP, then go BACk to advertising after the XP...of which would be eliminated if the players simply lined up for the KO after all TDs.
Again, the reason THGoF insisted they'll never dump the PAT: Less commercials, and those are what makes those huge NFL broadcast licenses profitable for networks.

[Timmy!]

I stopped after the first line..

Must not have been exciting enough eh?

[Timmy!]

Welp, this thread has devolved into full-blown circlejerk. You guys have fun. :)

The fact that BTB hi-fived this post from himself is friggin epic.

[BroncoWave]

The fact that BTB hi-fived this post from himself is friggin epic.

What can I say? I love me some me. When I'm right, I'm right! :D

[broncofaninfla]

If there were any rules changes involving kicks I'd like to see kicks 60 yards or longer count for four points.......

[dogfish]

they should make rushing TDs worth four points, and passing TDs worth eight points. . . and just eliminate field goals all together-- only scoring three points isn't exciting enough. . .