PATs are pretty much automatic so I get where it is coming from, might event eliminate a commercial break as it goes: TD - commercial - PAT - commercial - kickoff - commercial...so that would be nice. That being said I don't like screwing with the point format. I think if the reason for getting rid of it is that it's so automatic then make it more challenging, not get rid of it entirely. Like someone said: push it back another 10-15 yards or something. Even if it's still like 90% that is still some nerves around needing the PAT to tie the game with no time left on the clock and it gets blocked or goes wide.
Outstanding? Completely disagree. He's been atrocious. Let's put the fear of lawsuits aside for a second. You can add London football, the inevitable addition of another playoff team by 2015, cold weather Super Bowls and the tidal wave of player arrests under his watch. But I could live with most of that if he would just stop making bad rule after bad rule. You say he's been proactive. I say he's been way overreactive.
he's trying to grow the game globally and increase revenue. He's done that. I donn't like a London team, I'd rather London get a SB. we've had labor peace, ratings through the roof, the game is more popular than ever. He's done a good job whether he is liked or not. who cares about a cold weather SB? it's not a game for the fans anyway, it's not even a game anymore. It's a concert and a chance to sell ad time.
You can't blast him for Thursday and Saturday night games in one sentence, and them commend him for producing higher ratings in the the next sentence. I know what you're saying about the SB, but I'm surprised you're OK with the game being in London. It's still the ultimate goal of any franchise and the most important moment of any players career ... And also the payoff for the 6 month investment that we all put into the NFL as fans from the start of training camp. Playing the game in front of a foreign fan base who doesn't give a shit would be a slap in the face to every football fan in the country, and I bet the players would have a big problem with it if you polled them. What other country would host the most important game of their national sport in a different country? It's unheard of. Its like the Romanians holding their national gymnastics championship in Atlanta or the Austrians going to Colorado to crown the downhill champion. Think about how ridiculous that would be, but I can see it happening under this guys watch. Cold weather is also a terrible idea. If the game was being played in NJ today, the Broncos would have no shot. They couldn't run their offense. I want the players to determine the outcome ... Not the weather. Just one last comment ... Since I don't own an NFL franchise, growing the game and increasing revenues means nothing to me. As a fan, I'm far more concerned with his nonchalant attitude about tinkering with the integrity of the play on the field and turning football into something other than football.
I was actually against the idea of a change until I read your post, it's a quite convincing argument. I actually do like what someone else said in move it back 10-15 yards. That 15 yard penalty could really come back to bite you in the bum if your 30 yard XPAT turns into a 45 yarder.
I don't get how this argument can be made. The entire season and playoffs includes the potential of bad weather. It's part of determining who plays for the championship, but for some reason people don't want it as part of the championship game? Makes no sense. Weather is a part of football.
I listen to a lot of handicappers and the sharps seem to like Seattle, however if there is bad weather they really like Seattle because it's proven Manning has played like shit in bad weather. Now personally my feeling is fuck Peyton Manning that mush mouthed pompous asshole, but you know the media will go on about how once again he failed in a big spot and they'll blame the SB being played in NJ.
I think the PAT needs to be looked at from the other angle. The fact that it's almost automatic makes missing one a huge play. It's funny that this discussion comes up right after the 10 year anniversary of this ... http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kTGco82JKHo
What you're describing is a Home Field Advantage ... Which every team is supposed to have during the regular season and playoffs. That advantage is supposed to be eliminated for the SB. That's why they play it on a neutral field. The idea is to minimize the effect of every other factor and let the play of the two teams be the overwhelming deciding factor in the game. If you want weather to play a major role, than let the team with the better record host the game.
Bullshit argument. Playing indoors for the SB is as much as a home-field advantage for a pass-happy team like the Broncos or the Saints as playing in the snow would be for a ground-and-pound team like the Jets.
I'm not surprised Goodell wants to change the rule... why the hell not? he's changed almost everything else in this game to make it less recognizable and more complicated. The extra point rule doesn't need to change but the analysis and ingenuity from coaches does. Statistics show the conversion rate of going for 2 hovers around 50%. It makes sense to take that chance a lot more than we see coaches actually take it. Prior to the 4th quarter it's not even a discussion, usually and that's dumb. All it takes is one smart, ballsy coach to change that and start going for it more often and the others will follow. No need to change any rules..(as if we don't have enough)
Get rid of the PATs. Let the TD scoring team try to guess which root vegetable Vlad Ducasse is thinking of for the extra point.
Well, an economist would argue that those statistics imply that going for two is generally a bad idea. Basic economics says that there is a risk/reward tradeoff - you should only increase your risk in an investment for a higher expected reward. Both the one-point conversion and the two-point conversion currently have an expected reward of (around) 1 point, with the two-point conversion having vastly higher risk. Rational behavior is to not go for two unless you have to do it. Moving the kick back would lower the expected return, making the two-point try a better choice, but without that there is no particular impetus for coaches to change strategy.
Wishful thinking, but if the league could get rid of kicking specialists the league would become more interesting and extra point kicks would not have to go bye-bye.
So why does Godell like fucking with a good thing. Thursday night football sucks. The draft not be all on a weekend sucks. Not being able to tackle a QB sucks. The kickoffs suck, and now this extra point shit. Really, it will be flag football before too long. Worst commish EVER!
Do not remove it but I am in favor to backing it up to 18 yard line which will make it a 35 yard fg for the XP. If the team wants to go for 2, leave it on the 2 yard line.
Whoever scores the TD has to kick the XP? I don't think it would ever happen, and it would cause coaches who don't have that much practice time to have their offensive skill position players practice kicking. If the XP goes, I am expecting another way for the NFL to keep commercials and I don't know how they will do that without forcing viewers an extra long commercial break. I feel like the XP isn't a big issue they should be worried about right now
