The Extra Point - Why?

[macro]

Originally Posted by traderumor

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. Today 07:50 AM

I kinda like the idea of reducing the distance between the uprights. When kickers are making 85% - 90% of their FG attempts and 100% of their PAT attempts on the season, it's too easy. Another solution might be to have Brad St. Louis snap for every team?

The problem with the varying point values for FGs is that you penalize teams for progressing downfield, unless you allow them to purposely back up on fourth down to make the FG attempt longer. Otherwise, a runner with open field in front of him and his team needing 3 points to tie would have to lay down so as to keep the FG attempt long enough to be worth 3 points. But it might work to just let them pick their spot on the field when attempting a FG, so as to earn the desired number of points. Hey, it works in basketball.

[Roy Tucker]

I'd like to see them bring in the Canadian football rouge. Make special teams more exciting.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I'd like to see them bring in the Canadian football rouge. Make special teams more exciting.

They would have to extend the end zone 15 yards to do that.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by macro

I kinda like the idea of reducing the distance between the uprights. When kickers are making 85% - 90% of their FG attempts and 100% of their PAT attempts on the season, it's too easy. Another solution might be to have Brad St. Louis snap for every team?

The problem with the varying point values for FGs is that you penalize teams for progressing downfield, unless you allow them to purposely back up on fourth down to make the FG attempt longer. Otherwise, a runner with open field in front of him and his team needing 3 points to tie would have to lay down so as to keep the FG attempt long enough to be worth 3 points. But it might work to just let them pick their spot on the field when attempting a FG, so as to earn the desired number of points. Hey, it works in basketball.

Great point. The direction I was going is that the NFL hates FGs and have been devising ways for years to discourage their use. Their most recent attempt is the idiotic rule of giving the team the ball where the ball was kicked on a miss. I don't mind it being the 20 or line of scrimmage, whichever is greater, but from where the ball is kicked is stupid. Maybe they could move the goalposts 10 more yards behind the end line to alleviate the greater distances that kickers now kick. I also thought of moving goalposts that moved back and forth as a moving target to add some excitement to extra points. I think I was channelling both Charlie O. Finley and Bill Veeck at the same time on that thought.

[dsmith421]

I think it would be interesting if the NFL found some way to eliminate kicking specialists, but not to eliminate kicking, i.e., go back to the days when a QB or other player punted and placekicked. Not sure how this could be legislated, though. I think generally overspecialization in football (especially in college where some teams go to the ridiculous extent of have left- and right-footed punters) is a negative trend.

[Oxilon]

Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966

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.

I think the OT problem is easy to fix. Get rid of the stupid sudden death stipulation. I also think college football's OT is a little ridiculous as well; after playing 60 minutes where field position is a key factor to the game, all of the sudden each team gets the ball at the opposing team's 25 yard line? Who thought of that?

Simply, add an additional 10 minute quarter to the game, similar to the other football game. Nullifies the stupid sudden death aspect (or the game coming down to a coin flip) and ridiculous 25 yd. line B.S.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Oxilon

I think the OT problem is easy to fix. Get rid of the stupid sudden death stipulation. I also think college football's OT is a little ridiculous as well; after playing 60 minutes where field position is a key factor to the game, all of the sudden each team gets the ball at the opposing team's 25 yard line? Who thought of that?

Simply, add an additional 10 minute quarter to the game, similar to the other football game. Nullifies the stupid sudden death aspect (or the game coming down to a coin flip) and ridiculous 25 yd. line B.S.

How about each team gets a possession from a kickoff, have to go for 2 for the conversion if a TD is made, then if its still tied, they each get to kick a contested 45 yard FG, and if its still tied, its a tie. I think the more brief the better when you talk about the strain of just a regulation football game, but am also no fan of sudden death.

[JaxRed]

I have no problems with the role of kicking in today's game.

[Eric_the_Red]

OT in the NFL does not come down to a coin flip. Ask the Packers. I think the winning percentage for teams that win the flip is much lower than most people would suspect.

[Oxilon]

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008...lip-in-ot.html

[Eric_the_Red]

Originally Posted by Oxilon

The dreaded 'lose-the-coin-toss-never-touch-the-ball' scenario happened in 37 out of the 124 OT periods, or about 30% of all overtime games. That's too often in my opinion. The NFL's current sudden death format can be exciting and lead to quick resolutions. But if almost 1 out of 3 games is over before the unlucky coin toss loser even touches the ball, a lot of teams and fans are going to be left with a bitter and empty feeling.

http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008...lip-in-ot.html

I'd wager that if 30% of the teams that get the ball 1st score in OT to win, those same 30% would win if a 10 minute extra period was added. Very hard to let the other team score, and then outscore them with the remaining time left in that period.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Oxilon

Simply, add an additional 10 minute quarter to the game, similar to the other football game. Nullifies the stupid sudden death aspect (or the game coming down to a coin flip) and ridiculous 25 yd. line B.S.

I wouldn't mind seeing this. Plus add sudden death in the playoffs if the game is still tied after 5 periods. But I think the NFL likes the "sudden death" aspect. Sounds cooler than a 5th period.

[dsmith421]

Originally Posted by traderumor

How about each team gets a possession from a kickoff, have to go for 2 for the conversion if a TD is made, then if its still tied, they each get to kick a contested 45 yard FG, and if its still tied, its a tie. I think the more brief the better when you talk about the strain of just a regulation football game, but am also no fan of sudden death.

My pet idea is first to four points. If no one scores four points in the OT period but one team is ahead at the end of 15 minutes, they win.

[redhawkfish]

I hate overtime in any sport. I think you should get more credit for winning in regulation. Hockey does something like this. Of course, playoffs have to have OT!

[Caveat Emperor]

If the NFL wanted to discourage field goal use, they could place a limit on how far back the placeholder is allowed to be on a try (say, no more than 3 yards). The idea is that the closer to the line-of-scrimmage that a kicker is, the more they'll have to elevate the ball to avoid a block. This would, theoretically, mean more blocked field goals on longer-range low-trajectory kicks.