OT - Upcoming NFL Changes?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Dang. Now if anyone asks me where they can read a 6281 word treatise on extra-point theory I know where to find one.

And that one's about 15 years old. I'd've added a little to it if I'd kept it up to date.

Bottom line is, all forms of extra points are long overdue for abolition. And yet nobody can seem to bear to just do away with it, so they keep trying to fancy it up instead.

When I start a pro league, a TD will be 7 points and they'll just kick off afterward.

[ajmc]

Considering that the game of Football is played at vastly different skill levels, especially as relates to the kicking game, why change a fundamental part of the game? "It ain't broke, why fix it".

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And that one's about 15 years old. I'd've added a little to it if I'd kept it up to date.

Bottom line is, all forms of extra points are long overdue for abolition. And yet nobody can seem to bear to just do away with it, so they keep trying to fancy it up instead.

When I start a pro league, a TD will be 7 points and they'll just kick off afterward.

Nah. Just do it like rugby. Kick the PAT from where the score happened. If a touchdown pass is caught in the corner of the end zone, attempt the PAT from near the sideline.

[Texas Aggie]

"It ain't broke, why fix it".

Because at the NFL level, its near automatic and useless. I think the NFL is like Fed where if Team B secures possession, the try is ended. So at least in NCAA rules, there is a reason for both teams to continue with the try -- for now.

The kicking game, except possibly for field goals, is on its way out of the game. Its just a matter of someone coming up with a viable idea on how to replace it.

[MD Longhorn]

No more kicking PAT's. Put it in play from the 2 for 1 point, or from the 5 for 2 pts. PAT is about the only time you have to do damn near nothing to score. Make 'em earn it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No more kicking PAT's. Put it in play from the 2 for 1 point, or from the 5 for 2 pts. PAT is about the only time you have to do damn near nothing to score. Make 'em earn it.

Why should a major score confer an opp'ty for an add'l minor score of any kind, by any means?

[Adam]

A solution in search of a problem.

[Andy]

I've also heard a rumor that there is discussion about awarding additional points for a FG based on the distance of the kick.

Anybody have any info about this?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

A solution in search of a problem.

Exactly how I feel also.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

A solution in search of a problem.

See, you're thinking of only addressing problems. If there were really a problem with football, the solution would be simple: Don't play it.

Football is discretionary, so it's not a matter of remedies, but one of what can be done to make it more attractive. To look closest to the question at hand, when the 2-pt. conversion was introduced, it was not to address a problem. Or to look at other examples from football, when NCAA abolished the free kick from a fair catch, it was not to address a problem, nor was it doing so the year previous to that, when they abolished the fair catch entirely (nor was the CRU when they did similarly). Yes, frequently rule changes are made or considered to address drawbacks in safety or in ease of administration, or to redress a change in balance that was introduced by some other rule change or a change in play techniques. But the rest of the time it's that they think people will like it better a certain way.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Why should a major score confer an opp'ty for an add'l minor score of any kind, by any means?

It's actually a nice scoring mechanism if the minor score is difficult enough and if it is a meaningful amount of the major score. It allows for some variation in strategies to get more points than your opponent. By setting the point values where they are, a touchdown is worth two field goals, BUT it can still be worth more than that, making it the true goal of the game, while making it hard to achieve at lower levels. I

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jchamp

It's actually a nice scoring mechanism if the minor score is difficult enough and if it is a meaningful amount of the major score. It allows for some variation in strategies to get more points than your opponent.

If it's a nice scoring mechanism, why don't we see anything like it in games that aren't on the same model? Rugby doesn't count, same tradition; speedball doesn't count because deliberately modeled on same.

Tenpin bowling? Not really, because the add'l score isn't a minor one, and can actually equal or exceed the original score. Besides, bowling has a good reason for it: Once you knock down many pins with the 1st ball, you have fewer targets left, so the add'l score is to compensate and hence reward success.

It would be very easy to imagine extra point opp'ties arranged in other sports. In soccer, you score a goal, you're awarded a penalty kick worth 0.1 or 0.2 or 0.5 goal, for instance. The fact that we haven't seen such developments says there's something wrong with the concept, and that it is just a legacy where it does exist.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Because at the NFL level, its near automatic and useless. I think the NFL is like Fed where if Team B secures possession, the try is ended. So at least in NCAA rules, there is a reason for both teams to continue with the try -- for now.

The kicking game, except possibly for field goals, is on its way out of the game. Its just a matter of someone coming up with a viable idea on how to replace it.

Never worked in Texas, but a good deal of Collegiate, a lot of High School and without question at the Youth Football levels, the kicking game is anything but automatic, and is more of an adventure where just about anything can happen.

Maybe there should be a game with no kicking, or a variety of other different rules and objectives. American Football is said to have evolved, or at least be greatly influenced by, Rugby. Instead of tinkering with something that's working as well as EVER expected, someone might come up with something new.

Has Coca-Cola ever got close to it's market share before announcing it's "new" formula?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Has Coca-Cola ever got close to it's market share before announcing it's "new" formula?

It exceeded its previous share and totals.

If you were designing a game from scratch, it'd be very unlikely you'd include "extra points" of any kind. Sometimes games (quiz shows, most commonly) have a qualifying goal that allows you to try for a score, or a greater score if the qualifying goal scores by itself, but not the reverse.

I suspect the retention of the PAT was abetted by the (American) Football Rules Committee's removing the goals from the goal lines. If that hadn't happened, probably the try would've gone away by no later than 1925, Canadian football would've done similarly, and of course the 2 pt. conversion would never have been devised. But once the goals were on the end lines, there were a lot of HS teams that probably never attempted a goal except via try, so the try was considered significant, and then when their players got to college they were used to it, and since there was only one rules committee for American football, there was not much thought given to formulating rules only for HS.