• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

NFL fans, should the extra point be abolished?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gentleman Jack said:
ibbwetucEofnKI.png

Make the crossbar go up and down like a super mario world gate and make the kicks that go through at the highest elevation reward 1UP.
Click to expand...

Genius
 
Make it a risk. Take away the extra point. Make the touchdowns worth 7. They can opt for a conversion to get 8, but if they lose that, the touchdown is only worth 6. That way it adds some actual risk to it.
 
Change the shape of the uprights.

Make it the shape of the NFL shield.

Or make it a circle.

Or let every team design their own?
 
No. Dont touch whats already perfect imo. These 2 pts conversion sometime add things to games. Its part of the game. Also moving it back would make the 2 pts conversion wayyy harder.

NHL changes rules every years and its not always for the best. I think football in nfl is as good as it is .
 
DeaconKnowledge said:
Make the goalpost skinnier.

Kicking game is a joke. Even the most average kicker can knock it through from 55 yards away. Skinny up those goalposts add some excitement.
Click to expand...

I had a furious response typed up but then I saw who posted.

Oh you.

I'm fine with the game as is or just giving a team 7 points. Honestly the extra point can make the game more exciting in the rare case they miss.
 
eznark said:
The importance of the "extra point" isn't the kick itself, it's that it makes a touchdown worth more than two field goals. Making it more difficult to get that extra point only reduces the importance of the touchdown and will lead to teams being more conservative in the red zone and more field goals, as giving up a touchdown results in a reduced negative impact, which conversely means scoring one is less valuable.
Click to expand...
2X + (1*0.8) is close enough to 2X + (1*0.97) that I doubt it changes the "Do I go for X or 2X+" equation that much. But still, wouldn't that be an interesting decision to watch play out?

wildfire said:
We couldn't call this game football anymore if we removed the last vestige of actually kicking the ball.
Click to expand...
Which would be a valid complaint if the name of the game was related to that particular action. It's not.
 
Yaboosh said:
Well you could just make a td worth 7 points.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd be all for that. But that isn't "abolishing the extra point".

2X + (1*0.8) is close enough to 2X + (1*0.97) that I doubt it changes the "Do I go for X or 2X+" equation that much. But still, wouldn't that be an interesting decision to watch play out?
Click to expand...
No I think it would be less interesting as it rewards conservative play, something NFL coaches will jerk off to.
 
Anything that decreases the chance of making the extra point ends up decreasing the value of a touchdown against a field goal, which will make teams slightly more likely to settle for field goals. So attempts to make the extra point "more exciting" actually end up making the game less exciting.
 
Remove the extra point. Touchdown would be worth 7 points and teams would then have the option of attempting to get into the end zone from the 3 yard line after. Convert this and you get an extra point, miss it and lose a point.
 
eznark said:
The importance of the "extra point" isn't the kick itself, it's that it makes a touchdown worth more than two field goals. Making it more difficult to get that extra point only reduces the importance of the touchdown and will lead to teams being more conservative in the red zone and more field goals, as giving up a touchdown results in a reduced negative impact, which conversely means scoring one is less valuable.
Click to expand...

Ding Ding Ding.

Plus the Pat being an actual play leaves room for error and fakes which keeps special teams honest and forces you to have an actual FG kicker as opposed to some 3rd string RB filling in every once in a while.
 
They should have 20ft moving hoops that the players have to try and dunk on, like in that All Sport commercial from the mid-90's with Shaq.
 
BertramCooper said:
I have yet to read a convincing argument that the extremely high success rate actually indicates a problem.

The option of going to two adds sufficient risk, as far as I'm concerned. Do people really want to make extra point attempts so difficult that they regularly determine the outcomes of games?
Click to expand...


This.

The whole "endless progress, everything must be changed" is so annoying. If it aint broke don't fix it.
 
I think they should get rid of launching rules and let teams take their smallest players and just throw them over the oline to try to block the kick. That would be awesome.
 
CrunchyFrog said:
Ding Ding Ding.

Plus the Pat being an actual play leaves room for error and fakes which keeps special teams honest and forces you to have an actual FG kicker as opposed to some 3rd string RB filling in every once in a while.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously suggesting that the main reason teams hire good kickers is, not for kick-offs or field goals, but for extra points? Also, "room for error" really means "room for fluky, random nonsense to affect outcomes."

Paper Sparrow said:
Imagine games full of field goals.

That is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...
I don't think the OP is arguing that TDs should be worth 6 points. He's saying the extra point should be awarded without going through the motions of a gimme field goal kick. At least that's what I and several others in the thread are arguing. TDs would still be worth 7 points by default, 8 with a successful conversion, 6 with a failed conversion.
 
Rich Uncle Skeleton said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the main reason teams hire good kickers is, not for kick-offs or field goals, but for extra points? Also, "room for error" really means "room for fluky, random nonsense to affect outcomes."


I don't think the OP is arguing that TDs should be worth 6 points. He's saying the extra point should be awarded without going through the motions of a gimme field goal kick. At least that's what I and several others in the thread are arguing. TDs would still be worth 7 points by default, 8 with a successful conversion, 6 with a failed conversion.
Click to expand...

I guess that's fine. I can't say I invest enough time into football to tell if that would be good or not. Just seems like it would make games a little shorter.
 
I kind of like the idea the CFL had with rouges on punts so I'm going to steal that and adjust it. During the kickoff, the team that receives has to get the ball past their 20 yard line or else they give up the extra point.

You'd obviously have to move the kickoff line back a bit so you don't see kicks sailing into the endzone like they do now on a regular basis. It would make end of game ties a lot more exciting and make special teams a bit more important.
 
entrement said:
They moved it to the 33 yard line and it was still automatic basically.

So the 40 yard line?
Click to expand...

They did not move it to the 33 yard line. The 33 yard line is a 50 yard field goal, 40 yard line would be on par for the longest kicks of the season, 57 yards. They moved it to being a 33-yard kick, So, the 16 yard line, and it was not automatic. In 33 pre-season games eight extra points were missed. Doesn't seem like many until you realize that in 2013, only five extra points were missed all season in 272 games, a difference of 99.6% to just over 94%. This isn't a lot, but it would amount to about 64 missed XPs a season, a huge increase from just five in 2013.

--

Moving it back to the 15 yardline is a fine start. Moving it back to the 20 yard line is better. 20 yards is a 37-yard-field goal, still intensely makeable, but it's where kicks drop off from being a certainty and falls into about 86% certainty. 86% doesn't sound like a lot, but that's an extra point missed by one team or another in nearly every game, which isn't an enormous amount but it's enough to consider it.

I dislike the idea of moving the 2-point conversion to the 1 yard line. 1 yard plays are usually very boring, while the 2-point conversion is usually pretty exciting. 2 yards out is enough room to force teams to pass.

The most "fun" idea is to have the player who scored the touchdown kick the extra point. This is the most fun idea, the most watchable idea, and one that is closest to how the extra point was actually envisioned when the rule was created (when there weren't kick specialists, but instead skill players like WRs, Defensive players, and backs were expected to kick the ball). It would encourage a hell of a lot more 2-point conversions, but would also make extra points a lot more exciting. PLUS it would do something that the NFL loves, add more value to fantasy football. If a scoring player had an opportunity to get 7 points for every touchdown instead of 6 (e.g., 6 + the extra point), it would add real value to that player... If you scored 2 touchdowns in a game and kicked 2 extra points, with most leagues, that would be equivalent to 20 yards gained, or 2 receptions.

The league will never do that because it's too good of an idea and too dramatic of a shift. But it's brilliant, and fun, and would make the Extra Point one of the exciting moments in a game. Plus, scores will be much more varied, with far more 6s and 8s on the board than the typical run of 7s and 3s.

Do it NFL.

PastorOfMuppets said:
I kind of like the idea the CFL had with rouges on punts so I'm going to steal that and adjust it. During the kickoff, the team that receives has to get the ball past their 20 yard line or else they give up the extra point.

You'd obviously have to move the kickoff line back a bit so you don't see kicks sailing into the endzone like they do now on a regular basis. It would make end of game ties a lot more exciting and make special teams a bit more important.
Click to expand...

This would be a pretty fun idea, but the size of the Canadian Football field lends this to being an easier conversion for the returning team, and also, the NFL is strictly "against" making kickoffs any more returnable. Unfortunately, due to the nature of kickoffs, they're the plays where players get injured the most, and so the league is doing everything it can to reduce the likelihood of a kickoff without eliminating the play entirely.
 
Ramza said:
Make it a risk. Take away the extra point. Make the touchdowns worth 7. They can opt for a conversion to get 8, but if they lose that, the touchdown is only worth 6. That way it adds some actual risk to it.
Click to expand...

No one would ever go for a conversion if it lost them points.
 
Make it like the various Rugby codes: you kick in line from where the try/TD was scored. So if the TD is scored out wide, the kick is taken from out wide, at an angle to the posts.
 
Squirrel Killer said:
I liked what someone suggested in a previous thread about this: adopt the rugby style of scoring after a try, kick the ball from in-line from where the touchdown was scored. Score from a run right up the middle, easy kick, score by stretching out over the pylon, wicked angle. Perhaps bound it by a second set of hash marks so they don't have to kick from right on the sideline - or hell, don't and see some weird ass formations.
Click to expand...

This is the bestest.
 
The Albatross said:
They did not move it to the 33 yard line. The 33 yard line is a 50 yard field goal, 40 yard line would be on par for the longest kicks of the season, 57 yards. They moved it to being a 33-yard kick, So, the 16 yard line, and it was not automatic. In 33 pre-season games eight extra points were missed. Doesn't seem like many until you realize that in 2013, only five extra points were missed all season in 272 games, a difference of 99.6% to just over 94%. This isn't a lot, but it would amount to about 64 missed XPs a season, a huge increase from just five in 2013.

--

Moving it back to the 15 yardline is a fine start. Moving it back to the 20 yard line is better. 20 yards is a 37-yard-field goal, still intensely makeable, but it's where kicks drop off from being a certainty and falls into about 86% certainty. 86% doesn't sound like a lot, but that's an extra point missed by one team or another in nearly every game, which isn't an enormous amount but it's enough to consider it.

I dislike the idea of moving the 2-point conversion to the 1 yard line. 1 yard plays are usually very boring, while the 2-point conversion is usually pretty exciting. 2 yards out is enough room to force teams to pass.

The most "fun" idea is to have the player who scored the touchdown kick the extra point. This is the most fun idea, the most watchable idea, and one that is closest to how the extra point was actually envisioned when the rule was created (when there weren't kick specialists, but instead skill players like WRs, Defensive players, and backs were expected to kick the ball). It would encourage a hell of a lot more 2-point conversions, but would also make extra points a lot more exciting. PLUS it would do something that the NFL loves, add more value to fantasy football. If a scoring player had an opportunity to get 7 points for every touchdown instead of 6 (e.g., 6 + the extra point), it would add real value to that player... If you scored 2 touchdowns in a game and kicked 2 extra points, with most leagues, that would be equivalent to 20 yards gained, or 2 receptions.

The league will never do that because it's too good of an idea and too dramatic of a shift. But it's brilliant, and fun, and would make the Extra Point one of the exciting moments in a game. Plus, scores will be much more varied, with far more 6s and 8s on the board than the typical run of 7s and 3s.

Do it NFL.



This would be a pretty fun idea, but the size of the Canadian Football field lends this to being an easier conversion for the returning team, and also, the NFL is strictly "against" making kickoffs any more returnable. Unfortunately, due to the nature of kickoffs, they're the plays where players get injured the most, and so the league is doing everything it can to reduce the likelihood of a kickoff without eliminating the play entirely.
Click to expand...

I clarified 33 yard distance with another poster. My mistake.
 
Zaraki_Kenpachi said:
Sure but kickoff != PAT so that's not really worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

But, still, there are injuries on extra points for an effectively meaningless, unexciting, "go to the bathroom" play. Gronkowski is the most noteworthy in the last few years, but most recently, Tennessees best defensive player Bernard Pollard suffered a season ending injury this past weekend on an extra point. He has to get surgery.

It's not that extra points have a higher risk for injury, (although they are probably slightly higher because there is contact for virtually every player on the field but kicker and holder) but it's because the play is unexciting and virtually automatic so player injuries suffered on an extra point are especially frustrating for players, coaches, and fans.

While injuries wouldn't be cut down by moving the XP further out, it would add more value to the play.

elfinke said:
Make it like the various Rugby codes: you kick in line from where the try/TD was scored. So if the TD is scored out wide, the kick is taken from out wide, at an angle to the posts.
Click to expand...

FGs from the 2 yard line actually have a higher rate of success than extra points from the 2 yard line, and while this is probably a statistical anomaly (fewer chances), kicking from one hash or another, from that distance, doesn't seem to make an appreciable difference.
 
Rich Uncle Skeleton said:
Are you seriously suggesting that the main reason teams hire good kickers is, not for kick-offs or field goals, but for extra points? Also, "room for error" really means "room for fluky, random nonsense to affect outcomes."
Click to expand...

You could say the same thing about turnovers in general. I'll admit it's a weak addendum, but eznark's post is the one most on point here. It's crucial that the touchdown have an intrinsic worth more than simply settling for field goals, and the near surefire extra point is your wager when you go for the more risky two point conversion (however still leaving you with at least 6 points as a reward for getting that far)
 
DarkFlow said:
No, They have 6 when they go for the 2 point. They don't have 7 and then lose a point.
Click to expand...

There is literally no difference. If you prefer, you can frame as I did originally in this thread: The TD is worth 6 and the team has the ability to accept the extra point without doing anything, or try to get two points with a conversion (and possibly get nothing).

CrunchyFrog said:
You could say the same thing about turnovers in general. I'll admit it's a weak addendum, but eznark's post is the one most on point here. It's crucial that the touchdown have an intrinsic worth more than simply settling for field goals, and the near surefire extra point is your wager when you go for the more risky two point conversion (however still leaving you with at least 6 points as a reward for getting that far)
Click to expand...
I don't understand. Do you still think I'm arguing against the extra point itself? See above; I'm arguing against needing to kick a short FG in order to earn the extra point, which I assume is what the OP meant as well.
 
Rich Uncle Skeleton said:
There is literally no difference. If you prefer, you can frame as I did originally in this thread: The TD is worth 6 and the team has the ability to accept the extra point without doing anything, or try to get two points with a conversion (and possibly get nothing).
Click to expand...

There is figuratively no difference. Literally, there is a difference. Teams are awarded a point for an extra point not deprived of a point for a failed extra point. Literally, the scoreboard does not take points away for failed conversions.
 
The Albatross said:
There is figuratively no difference. Literally, there is a difference. Teams are awarded a point for an extra point not deprived of a point for a failed extra point. Literally, the scoreboard does not take points away for failed conversions.
Click to expand...

There is no difference between these two scenarios:

a) TD is scored, team gets 6 points, can choose to either take one free point or try for a two-point conversion

and

b) TD is scored, team gets 7 points, can choose to try for a conversion that gains one point if successful, loses one point if it fails

These are identical.
 
Cyan said:
There is no difference between these two scenarios:

a) TD is scored, team gets 6 points, can choose to either take one free point or try for a two-point conversion

and

b) TD is scored, team gets 7 points, can choose to try for a conversion that gains one point if successful, loses one point if it fails

These are identical.
Click to expand...
Psychologically, they're not identical. Option b could put emotionally fragile teams like the Bears into a tailspin.
I think that's what he's getting at.
 
the detroit lions are trying very hard to make this an interesting experiment , but all the other teams still just chip them in....I wouldn't mind it being gone but i've seen em get blocked...and hey man special teams needs stuff to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ET The Extra Terrestrial is still a masterpiece
20
342
GateofD replied
NFL fans: the once great commercial-free NFL RedZone channel will have commercials starting this season
22
877
Unknown Soldier replied
  • Poll
Should AI features be optional
30
781
Draugoth replied
🏈 NFL 2025
17 18 19 20 21
1K
10K
HeisenbergFX4 replied
What should Jason Stathams next movie be called. The (insert mundane job title)?
2 3
103
1K
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Top Bottom