As I've been watching the playoffs this weekend it occurred to me what a waste of time the extra point is in football. If we were designing a game now, would anyone include it? It seems to be something that someone thought was a good idea at one point and it just became part of the game.
Is there any reason, other than tradition, why extra points shouldn't just be eliminated? Just make a TD 7 points and keep fieldgoals 3 points. Just get rid of it. It adds nothing to the game.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
I would agree, but I kind of like the option of trying a 2 point conversion attempt instead. I think I'd prefer making extra points and field goals more difficult somehow.
"Reality tells us there are no guarantees. Except that some day Jon Lester will be on that list of 100-game winners." - Peter Gammons
I think they should get rid of the field goal altogether. No field goals, no extra points; Touchdowns only. And if a team scores a touchdown, they must go for the two point conversion.Originally Posted by MWM
Yes. Scrawny kickers shouldn't decide a game played by athletic beasts duking it out for 3 hours. It's stupid.
"....the two players I liked watching the most were Barry Larkin and Eric Davis. I was suitably entertained by their effortless skill that I didn't need them crashing into walls like a squirrel on a coke binge." - dsmith421
It's kind of like the intentional walk in baseball - every now and then something will go wrong, and make you glad they don't just point to the batter and say go to first (though I think more extra points are missed than there are wild pitches on passed balls.)
I'd rather eliminate punting than the extra point, to be honest.
Last time I checked...teams going for 2 made the conversion over 50 percent of the time...
So if you always went for 2, could you come out ahead in the long run?
It is the same rationale baseball managers use when bunting.
When all is said and done more is said than done.
From wiki:
The extra point is among the oldest parts of the game of gridiron football and dates to its rugby roots. In its earliest days, scoring a touchdown was not the primary objective but a means of getting a free kick at the goal (hence why the name "try," more commonly associated with rugby today, is still in American football rule books), and thus while a field goal would be 5 points, a touchdown would only be one point and the conversion would be worth four (for a total of five). By the start of the 20th century, touchdowns had become more important and the roles of touchdown and kick were reversed. By this time the point value for the after-touchdown kick had reduced to its current one-point value while the touchdown was now worth five. (This later increased to six points in American football in 1912 and in Canadian football in 1956.)
That definitely doesn't convince me.
Probably so that the NFL can retain one of the last vestiges of the game that justifies calling it "football" instead of some other name more consistent with how the sport is actually played.
Wear gaudy colors, or avoid display. Lay a million eggs or give birth to one. The fittest shall survive, yet the unfit may live. Be like your ancestors or be different. We must repeat!
Bengals fans (and I am sure fans of other teams) know that the XP is not always automatic. Whether it be the long-snapper, the holder or the kicker. Even FGs that are closer than XPs are not gimmes (19 yards, Romo botches the hold...). I say keep it.
If a change is needed, I feel the NFL overtime is first in line. Like college? I don't know, but anything but sudden death.
Eliminating kicking in any way would fundamentally alter football in a negative way. Think about it, and I mean really think about it. Would you enjoy a game with no punting or place kicking? I mean, would you really?
What would we call it? "Pass and run ball"? The kicking game is one of the greatest sources of unpredictability and exciting plays, IMO. I think the original post really belongs in the "things that drive you crazy thread," because I personally don't get it and see it as someone's own pet peeve.
That also keeps in mind that, like some things, the science of football kicking has progressed to the point where it is "automatic," but that has only been since the 70s. When LBers and wideouts used to handle the kicking duties as a "second job," the extra point was just as unpredictable as any FG attempt.
Something I see as a bigger challenge is the range that FG kickers have progressed to because of the influence of soccer on kickers' ability to kick the ball further. When guys are kicking 55 yarders half way up the uprights, I could see a legitimate argument for making the FG more difficult. Higher cross bar? Move in the uprights? Maybe they could have two sets of uprights, use electronics and hydraulics to move the uprights in closer for extra points, then back out to standard for FGs. Or, have a point system for FGs based on distance. Under 30 yards is 1 pt. 31-45 yards is 2 pts. 46+ is a 3 ptr. Alteration sounds much better than elimination.
Last edited by traderumor; 01-11-2010 at 08:52 AM.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
That's one heck of an idea...it'll never happen, but I like it!
Whenever a game is played in Europe the extra point is always cheered more loudly than the TD. I always found that amusing.
Reds Fan Since 1971
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote