The Extra Point - Why?

[MWM]

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.

[blumj]

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.

[Oxilon]

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.

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.

[Redhook]

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.

Yes. Scrawny kickers shouldn't decide a game played by athletic beasts duking it out for 3 hours. It's stupid.

[UKFlounder]

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.

[kaldaniels]

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?

[dabvu2498]

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.

[westofyou]

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.)

[kaldaniels]

It is the same rationale baseball managers use when bunting.

That definitely doesn't convince me. :D

[Yachtzee]

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.

[RedFanAlways1966]

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.

[reds1869]

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?

[traderumor]

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.

[reds1869]

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.

That's one heck of an idea...it'll never happen, but I like it!

[cumberlandreds]

Whenever a game is played in Europe the extra point is always cheered more loudly than the TD. I always found that amusing.

[macro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-in-ot.html

[Eric_the_Red]

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/2008/10/how-important-is-coin-flip-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]

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]

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.

[Chip R]

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.


I think the folks blocking for the kicker wouldn't like that too much when the kicks hit them in the back.

[15fan]

I like the XP. Among other things, it gives the kicker on the sidelines a chance to loosen up his leg before the ensuing kickoff.

2 rule changes I'd like to see:

1) Instead of getting the ball at the 20 on a touchback, give the receiving team the ball at the 30 or 35. There's no disincentive for booming a KO into the endzone. Up the ante a little so that we see more returns on KOs.

2) Give the defense more than 2 points for a safety. If the D tackles the offense in the end zone, they should get at least 3 points. IMO, it should net the same amount of points as a TD. The object of the game is to get the ball into the endzone. Tackling a ball carrier in his own endzone achieves just that.

[macro]

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.

Caveat, your avatar is an Avatar avatar. That's the first Avatar avatar I've seen on the Web. I have no other reason for commenting on it other than to see how many times I can use the word "avatar" in a sentence or two. I challenge anyone to include more. :cool:

[Yachtzee]

If you really want to make things "fun," make the player who scored the touchdown kick the extra point. Another idea is to just get rid of holders.

[Roy Tucker]

Make them line up the little metal kicker guy from the vibrating football game. And make him kick the little football that looks like a piece of belly-button lint.

That ought to be a challenge.

[Yachtzee]

Make them line up the little metal kicker guy from the vibrating football game. And make him kick the little football that looks like a piece of belly-button lint.

That ought to be a challenge.

Or just line up a giant sized "Super Jock" toy kicker. It would give those fat linemen something else to do - jump on the "Super Jock's" head to make him kick the field goal.

[Roy Tucker]

Or just line up a giant sized "Super Jock" toy kicker. It would give those fat linemen something else to do - jump on the "Super Jock's" head to make him kick the field goal.

Perhaps line up a triangular folded piece of paper and flick it with their finger like we used to do in study hall. Your opponent makes a goal post with their fingers. You get extra points if you drill them in their forehead and cackle fiendishly.

[kaldaniels]

I'd just like to add I think things are just fine the way they are.

Ask Shayne Graham or Neil Rackers about automatic kicks.

[kaldaniels]

Caveat, your avatar is an Avatar avatar. That's the first Avatar avatar I've seen on the Web. I have no other reason for commenting on it other than to see how many times I can use the word "avatar" in a sentence or two. I challenge anyone to include more. :cool:

Done :D

In reference to Caveat's avatar, Macro said "Caveat, your avatar is an Avatar avatar. That's the first Avatar avatar I've seen on the Web. I have no other reason for commenting on it other than to see how many times I can use the word "avatar" in a sentence or two. I challenge anyone to include more."

[Jack Burton]

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.
Agreed 100%.

Only kickoffs & punts would remain for the kicking game. Let the game be decided by the real players on the field, this ain't soccer.

[Chip R]

In the old World Football League from the 70s, TDs were worth 7 points and you could try a 1 point conversion called, the "Action Point" from the 5 via run or pass.

[SunDeck]

I think extra points are useless. Just make it one point or nothing for what is currently the two point conversion.
And points awarded for field goals should be worth more the closer you are to the goal line. 3 points for anything within the 20 yard line, 2 from the twenty to the 35 and 1 from further out than that. Nothing bothers me more than seeing a team tie or go ahead late in a close game, only to have some soccer player lace one from 50 yards out to take the victory away. Rewarding a team with a win for driving to the 35 yard line is just wrong.

[Eric_the_Red]

I don't mind kickers in the real game, but I'd love to eliminate them from fantasy football. Nothing worse than losing in fantasy because of a missed FG.

[traderumor]

I think extra points are useless. Just make it one point or nothing for what is currently the two point conversion.
And points awarded for field goals should be worth more the closer you are to the goal line. 3 points for anything within the 20 yard line, 2 from the twenty to the 35 and 1 from further out than that. Nothing bothers me more than seeing a team tie or go ahead late in a close game, only to have some soccer player lace one from 50 yards out to take the victory away. Rewarding a team with a win for driving to the 35 yard line is just wrong.They are being rewarded for being in the game to the point that a short drive can net a game winning FG. Consider the flip side. Why should a team that was behind the entire game be rewarded with a victory because they went ahead late in the game? Why should a team that waited until the very end to go ahead be rewarded with a victory?

As with any game, you make up the rules and the players of the game (owners, GMs, coaches, players) build and strategize based on the rules of the game. It doesn't have to meet some universal standard of fairness.

[TeamSelig]

I like the idea of eliminating extra points and forcing 2 PT conversions. I don't mind FGs, but in an OT game, you should be forced to score a TD.

[Hoosier Red]

I like the XP. Among other things, it gives the kicker on the sidelines a chance to loosen up his leg before the ensuing kickoff.

2 rule changes I'd like to see:

1) Instead of getting the ball at the 20 on a touchback, give the receiving team the ball at the 30 or 35. There's no disincentive for booming a KO into the endzone. Up the ante a little so that we see more returns on KOs.



That would actually lead to more touchbacks. If a returner was ready to receive the ball at the 1, he could just let it bounce and catch it in the endzone. It would actually end up being like punts where the player figures out a yard where it doesn't make sense to catch it, and if the kickoff is going to go past that he just backs up.

If you wanted more live returns, only give the receiving team the 10 yard line on a touchback.

[Newport Red]

I'd eliminate the kicker completely, make a touchdown 7 points and punt the ball from the 20 yard line then add 10 yards for the inevitable blocking in the back penalty.

[Redsfan320]

This is truly a great thread. It's a strong discussion with opposing viewpoints, strong

arguments on every side, and some humor. I'm thinking Archives.

320

[improbus]

The biggest reason that the NFL won't eliminate or even adjust the kicking game. Commercials. How could they pull their favorite routine (which makes me not want to watch the NFL): Touchdown, XP, commercial, Kickoff, commercial, three and out, punt, commercial. Money, money money. It is the only reason that sports do what they do.

[traderumor]

The biggest reason that the NFL won't eliminate or even adjust the kicking game. Commercials. How could they pull their favorite routine (which makes me not want to watch the NFL): Touchdown, XP, commercial, Kickoff, commercial, three and out, punt, commercial. Money, money money. It is the only reason that sports do what they do.Which is why you have the choice to watch them on free TV.

[improbus]

Which is why you have the choice to watch them on free TV.

And I typically don't.

[kaldaniels]

The biggest reason that the NFL won't eliminate or even adjust the kicking game. Commercials. How could they pull their favorite routine (which makes me not want to watch the NFL): Touchdown, XP, commercial, Kickoff, commercial, three and out, punt, commercial. Money, money money. It is the only reason that sports do what they do.

Commericials would not be affected by a lack of a kicking game. You'd just get a commerical break after a change of possession or after a touchdown. Its that easy.

[macro]

The biggest reason that the NFL won't eliminate or even adjust the kicking game. Commercials. How could they pull their favorite routine (which makes me not want to watch the NFL): Touchdown, XP, commercial, Kickoff, commercial, three and out, punt, commercial. Money, money money. It is the only reason that sports do what they do.

Which is the reason I never watch any sporting event live. I record everything to the DVR and wait about 30 minutes (for a two-hour basketball game) to 45 minutes (for a three-hour football or baseball game) before I start watching. I usually finish up the game just about the time it's actually ending by forwarding through all the commercials, saving 30-45 minutes of my life for something more productive.

[blumj]

Which is the reason I never watch any sporting event live. I record everything to the DVR and wait about 30 minutes (for a two-hour basketball game) to 45 minutes (for a three-hour football or baseball game) before I start watching. I usually finish up the game just about the time it's actually ending by forwarding through all the commercials, saving 30-45 minutes of my life for something more productive.

I try to do that, I record and have every intention of doing it, but it turns out I'm incapable of the waiting long enough to start watching part. The fact that I generally tend to avoid doing more productive things with most of my time might have something to do with it.

[improbus]

Commericials would not be affected by a lack of a kicking game. You'd just get a commerical break after a change of possession or after a touchdown. Its that easy.

Yeah, but could you do the NFL-double-commercial special? Don't think so.

[Kingspoint]

Why the extra point?

Because there's still people like Shayne Graham.

[Newport Red]

Why the extra point?

Because there's still people like Shayne Graham.

...and the end of the 2006 season wouldn't have happened like it did.

[Danny Serafini]

Yeah, but could you do the NFL-double-commercial special? Don't think so.

Of course they could. It's not like there's a commercial between the TD and the XP.

[Deepred05]

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.
You have some interesting thoughts. Perhaps you could sell them to the arena football league first to see if they fly;)

[reds1869]

Of course they could. It's not like there's a commercial between the TD and the XP.

But there is one between the XP and kickoff and one between the kickoff return and next series. I think that is what they are referring to.

[Danny Serafini]

But there is one between the XP and kickoff and one between the kickoff return and next series. I think that is what they are referring to.

So you just cut to commercial after the TD and again after the kickoff. It really isn't complicated.

[reds1869]

So you just cut to commercial after the TD and again after the kickoff. It really isn't complicated.

Ah, but then how would they also include the commerical for when the obvious TD is challenged? :)