Extra Points Could Become 42 Yards in the NFL
NFL Media's Judy Battista reports the NFL Competition Committee is in preliminary talks about placing the ball at the 25-yard line for the point-after attempt. That would make the extra point a 42-yard attempt.
The ball is currently spotted at the 2-yard line, a 20-yard chip shot that was converted 99.6 percent of the time during the 2013 season. The kick was so automatic that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell floated the idea in January of eliminating the PAT entirely.
"There is no consensus yet," one member of the committee told Battista. "We could experiment in preseason, but we are not there yet." Placing the ball at the 25-yard line would certainly increase the degree of difficulty for kickers. The conversion rate of field goals between 40 and 49 yards last season was 83 percent.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000330385/article/competition-comm…
It has the effect of diminishing the value of a touchdown while increasing the value of a field goal, which is the exact opposite of what should be done. I think touchdowns are more than twice as hard to get as field goals, and should be valued accordingly. This change would make it less likely for a team to go for it on fourth down rather than kick a medium-to-long field goal because there is a decent chance that the touchdown would only get them 6 points. Also, what the hell do you do for 2-point conversions? Do you spot the the ball differently for those? And how is it fair to signal to the defense what you are trying to do based on where the ball is spotted? As it is now the defense has to hold people back in case of a fake, but they might as well go all out if it's a 42-yard try because the chances of getting to the end zone from a fake at that distance are pretty slim. In short, get off my lawn, NFL.
As has been said already, I'd rather let a team take the 7 automatically or take 6 with a 2-point attempt. Honestly, though, this is fixing something that just isn't broken.
Great comment. This would diminish the EV of a touchdown. Assuming the NFL's goal is more exciting plays, this potential change could backfire.
But how many NFL coaches care about cost-benefit analysis of fourth down strategy? Or even understand basic statistics?
MAYBE Belichick?
I'm not sure that changing the values of touchdows by +/- 1 point will have much impact on fourth down strategy since that strategy is already overwhelmingly dictated by playing conservatively and following standard protocol rather than by any sort of EV calculations.
So if the Lions just scored a TD against the Bears, the Bears choose Nick Fairley to attempt the extra point. I'm hearing Yakety Sax just thinking about it.
Or, just eliminate the roster position of "kicker." All FGs, extra points, and punts can only be made by regular position players.
Option 2: someone on the field from the scoring play has to take it. Players like Ochocinco become extra valuable; you can also gamble and line up your kicker as a WR if you think you will score on that play.
I'm Danny White, and I approve of this message:
Good thing Jason Hanson retired when he did. Great kicker, but even he would miss a few trys-after from that distance...which would have lowered his career total big time.
That would be a major change to the rules.
I'm pretty sure their spot was created for skinny and or short soccer players who really wanted to play football. Or europeans who just wanted to fit in once moving to the US.
I remember thinking in high school.. "omg those college lineman would crush me, but damn I can kick a ball really far".
*shrug* I have a good feeling had I played I'd have punted/kicked, and never made it on the field otherwise. Then again I didn't understand what a weight room was for until after college.
but extra points in the NFL are a complete joke.
Maybe change the rules for how players can line up. I can't remember ever seeing a fake extra point. Can you all?
Make it harder (but not too hard) to make the kick, but easier (but not too easy) to convert a fake. Require a certain number of players to line up outside, or behind the line, or make the holder catch the ball with his knee off the ground (forcing the whole operation further back behind the line of scrimmage, I would think). Basically, make it different from a field goal.
Blindfold the kicker
Tie kicker’s legs together
Ball for extra point attempt placed on batting tee
Wiffle or foam footballs used for extra points
Goal posts become a moving target
Ball placed at 45 yard line and drop kicks are mandatory
Randomly selected fan kicks the extra point
Defense can’t rush the kicker, but CAN fire paintballs at him
Raise the crossbar, so it’s 25 yards high
Kicker’s approach covered by a Slip ‘N Slide
Team’s mascot and cheerleader are snapper and holder
You should combine the last two and add a twist -- the cheerleader kicker has her approach covered by a Slip 'N Slide. If she makes the kick do the NBA lottery ping pong ball thing to see if her team gets a point. The hotter the cheerleader, the more chances the team gets in the lottery.
I am OK with this.
I think they should spot the ball where the ball crossed the goal line, as in rugby, that would make many PAT's difficult and at least more interesting.
I guess I need to know the NFL's intention. Are they trying to encourage more teams to go for two? (And not just in late game situations.)
If a 42 yd FG is coverted 83% of the time, then the expected pt value of the XP would be 1 x 0.83 = 0.83 pts.
If a 2-pt conversion is converted 50% of the time (which I think is roughly correct), then the expected pt value of it would be 2 x 0.5 = 1 pt.
As it stands now, the XP and 2-pt conversion have the same expected value of ~1 pt. So risk averse coaches take the safe route and kick the XP. But if coaches are getting a risk premium to go for two - in this case +0.17 pts - then maybe that changes their strategy.
But I just don't think the risk premium of +0.17 pts is enough to change a coach's mind.
But this I can live with, and I think I could grow to like it.
I'd rather they take the XP out of the game before they do this.
Just say a TD is worth 7 unless you want to try for 2.
If games are won or loss because of a 42 yard XP, there's going to be a revolt. If you drive 99 yards to tie the game...or almost tie the game. It shouldn't be loss because of one kick. You deserve to go to OT and continue the game.
If you want to bump it back to the 5 or 10 yardline, whatever. But the 25 is stupid.
Personally, I would've always had XP and 2 point conversions back at the 5 or 10 yardline.
Before a game make kickers choose a foot for FGs; the other will kick XPs.
Wouldn't this make the 2-pt conversion the obvious decision in nearly every scenario? If you make the conversion 50% of the time, that's better than 1-point 90% of the time. Even conservative football coaches should figure that one out.
If they want the PAT to be nearly automatic, but not as automatic as it is today, and at the same time limit the influence of kicking on the game, they should do some combination of the following: narrow the goal posts, widen the hashmarks, and spot the PAT at the point where the ball crossed the endzone with the hashmark being the outer limit. PAT conversion probably goes down to 97% from 99% and FGs in general become more difficult. The game gets better. Problem solved without getting too drastic.
Well, it's more like 45-47%. That's part of the reason I like making XPs less worth it. If it were 90% and 45%, then there'd be no obvious choice one way or the other.
I think it's a little higher than that when you weed out botched kick attempts. A quick google search says it's about 48%. Maybe it would still be a pretty even split, kickers are pretty damn good these days, maybe they could get to 96%. In any event, I still like my idea as kicking has become too easy in the NFL. Non-drastic changes in the rules of the game (changes that would be hardly noticeable to the casual fan) could revert the game back to more acceptable risk/reward ratios for decisions with respect to kicking a fg/pat.
What I've never quite understood is why the hashmarks are so wide in college but narrow in the NFL. I know kicking isn't the only impact they have, but it's probably the biggest impact they have; it seems as if the good kickers ought to have a higher degree of difficulty. It'd be like if the college three-point line was further out than the NBA's. Or if college baseball used wooden bats but MLB used aluminum - and not the new clank bats, but the old ping ones.
but also in terms of offensive-defensive strategy for plays near hash marks versus the center of the field. It's why in college you get weird game-within-the-game situations like fast-paced teams keeping the ball on the hash mark furthest away from the opponent, making it more difficult for the defense to make substitutions on the fly.
How many times have you seen an NFL team center a kick with a snap? It happens in college all the time, yet I can't remember a single instance in teh NFL.
Make the hash marks wider, then add a rule where extra points start from where the touchdown was scored (if it's beyond the hash amrk, the ball gets placed on the hash mark). I have to imagine extra point percentages would decrease from that. It's hard to make a short kick at a more extreme angle.
But yeah, I've never understood why hashes are so close together in the NFL. Never made sense.
Keep the tradional XP the same and worth 1 pt.
Make a drop kick worth 2 points.
Allow a free kick from your own 40 yard line (no defense). If it goes through the uprights you get 3 points.
Make a 2pt conversion worth 3 pts and move it to the 5 yrd line.
It was called "foot" ball because kicking was a big part of the game.
Throwing this idea out there as something different compared to what's been stated (or so I think).
1. Get rid of kicking the extra point.
2. Get rid of the two point conversion and instead...
3. You have to line up in goaline on the 2 as is currently done. If you get it in the endzone you get that 1 extra point to get to the traditional 7.
Now we see more actual football, extra points now achieve that 50/50 area that is exciting, and they also become much more critical to the outcome of the game. It's like after the third overtime of college games all the time.
I think that would be fun to watch. Getting one point, especially to tie or win would become dramatic as hell.
Move the posts closer together and add a top crossbar, enclosing a square hoop. Put more premium on accuracy and less on raw kick strength. Also it would eliminate the borderline calls where the ball travels over the upright.
Why would anyone want a game to possibly hang on a PAT attempt?
Eliminate the holder. Kickers can dropkick or placekick with the ball placed flat on the ground, as in a penalty kick. If a special "K" ball is needed, the kickoffs should also be flat on the ground. The ball used to be rounder, back in Michigan's glory days, before the oblate spheroid was elongated to make it easier to throw,
A PAT can be blocked. I know its extremely rare but when it does happen it is a really exciting play. Maybe let the players boost off each other? Or a lineup change on the kicking team? I don't know.
mfan_in_ohio made a great point. If an increasing number of touchdowns are effectively worth six points now instead of seven, now a FG is worth more. Suddenly, instead of minimizing the kicking game, we've increased its significance.
Hey, I agree that the XP play isn't that exciting, but we don't want to devalue a TD unless we can either devalue a FG as well (which seems pretty drastic, turning into a 2pt play or something,) or make FGs harder. I like the widening of hashmarks idea, as well as narrowing of the goal posts.
I think the NFL would be well served to bring the goal posts closer together. Move the PAT out a little further than it is now, but not 42 yards out. The narrow goal posts still make the PAT and FGs in general more difficult, and thus more games are decided by offense and defense instead of the kicking game.
If they do decide to make PATs harder, then I hope they back up the 2pt conversions a yard or two. I like how it is a bit of a gamble to go for 2 and can be an important swing play late in a game. If teams are going for 2 the majority of the time, we lose a lot of the drama, and that would contradict the NFL's stated goal of "making every play exciting."
This would encourage teams to go for two more frequently, and would definitely make the time period after a TD a little more interesting. Right now for about 10 minutes of real time after a TD, you don't even have to look at the TV, or you fast forward on your Tivo.
Today you have: Touchdown, wait for practically guaranteed extra point, commercial, kickoff into the end zone, commercial
With this proposal you have a decent chance teams will go for two, making things more interesting, and a real possibility of missing the FG which is worth watching as well.
Overall, the PAT is definitely just a gimme these days, modifying it is a great idea and would make games more exciting.