the point is? we haven't seen a warm weather team vs. a cold weather team in a SB b/c this will be the first. I am sure we will see similar results over time if there are more. In each of your examples the better team and the favored team won.
Well, to be fair, the article calls that weird plus/minus extra point "one suggested proposal." I'm not interested in that. I'm also not interested in an automatic 7 and nothing else. But every article I've seen has talked about modifying the PAT, not eliminating it, and it seems the purpose is to add excitement, not limit injuries or make it flag football. There was a time when the forward pass wasn't "how the game is played" and the goal posts were on the goal line. Replacing the PAT is a good idea, and no one will miss it when it's changed.
The only downside to this is that XP and 2 point conversion happens from different yard lines. Also, if the FG were to be moved back, I would want the inclusion of returning an XP or 2 point conversion gets the defense points. Yeah the potential to go for 2 needs to be kept. It keeps the rare 24 a 3 possession game and makes 17 a very important number instead of 15 I guess. In my mind this would limit TV time, but I'm sure the NFL would find a way to keep those commercials. Aren't the snaps on kneel downs near 99% or above it also? Why not just skip kneel downs and say the game is over if a team says they'll kneel down? The logic behind it being reported sounds silly. "Oh it's almost 100% automatic, so take it out" The more I thought about it, you are right. A TD costs 6 points. The coach can then take 1 free point or go for 2 and keeping 6 points. That way it's not like the coach is "losing" a point when he goes for 2 and fails. It's a really strange situation. Again the two most clever ones I like, but the NFL will probably never adopt, are the scoring player kicks the XP or rugby style, wherever the TD scored, the team has to kick the uncontested XP from there. They can go back as far they want in a straight line from where the ball cross the GL to attempt the XP. The rugby one takes out the injury potential since it will be an uncontested kick.
Something about getting a 'free' point i don't like. There needs to be some type of action. I do like the idea of just moving it back. Making it a 35yd attempt instead of 20yd. I agree its a little weird to have a different yd line for kick attempts vs 2pt attempts. But its a little less weird than a free point, or losing a point thats already been put on the board. I've always thought the rugby way was the best approach as well. Have option of taking an uncontested kick attempt from the same vertical plane from where the TD was scored, or a 2pt conversion attempt from 3yd line. I like that a lot. The uncontested attempt does reduce potential injury as you mentioned. And if the wide angle kicks do prove challenging, it rewards teams for pounding up the middle (real football imo) more than those isolation fade touch passes to corner of end zone. I wonder if the kicking specialists would master those angles kicks quick enough to make them almost automatic as well..
Alright here is why this absolutely ruins football imo, some of the great drives were off of TD drives, you are COMPLTELY devaluing the TD if you take this route. If the game is 22-16, team scores TD, tied 22-22, the game is not about the TD drive it is about the 2 pt conversion. If the game is 23-16, team scores TD, down 23-22, the game is not about the TD drive, it is about the 2 pt conversion. If the game is 24-16, team scores TD, down 24-22, the game is not about the TD drive, it is about the 2 pt conversion. I think this will devalue the TD drive completely and put all the drama into the 2 pt conversion.
if the game is 22-16 and they score a TD it becomes 23-22 just as it would w/ an extra point. if it is 23-16 it becomes tied if it is 24-16 they got for 2 just as they would now. The TD drive is not devalued. it is the same as before except they wouldn't be taking the extra time to line up and kick a PAT.
Yeah the 'free' point feels wrong, but to me it feels better than 'subtracting' a point if they go for 2 and miss. And I guess technically they are still going for "2" if the TD is 6 points vs 7 points and then losing a point. The only problem with the rugby is I guess very close to the sideline. Do you make room on the sideline near the bench/cheerleaders/equipment to give the kicker room. The sideline is always a mess, but an uncontested kick changes the room/time they need to kick it. If they eliminate it like Goodell is saying, I really still want the TD to count for 6 and the XP to have to be "accepted" by the HC. It feels better than a team losing a point. The way I read the rule was the TD counts for 7, then if you go for 2 and get it, you get 8 and if you miss, you get 6. It's not a forced 2 PT conversion.
That proposed rule would change nothing. Because the kicks are so automatic, that is essentially what it's like now. Every team would just take the 7 until the off chance that they needed 8 late in the game. That rule wouldn't encourage going for 2 anyway, and it wouldn't really make any difference except giving kickers less time on the field. I am against changing the rule - but if they do anything they better either A) make it more advantageous to go for 2 or b) make the extra point more difficult (which goes along with point a) That proposal that Goodell mentioned would change NOTHING.
I don't care for the rule change but what the hell were you smoking when you wrote this? As for the rule change, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't change a rule or add a rule unless something needs to be fixed. So what was wrong with the game of football that they feel the need to change the way scoring works? There were 5 extra points missed this year. An extra point could be the difference between winning and losing.
I didnt read the article, I was under the impression that there would be no 1 pt option, it would only be 2 pt PAT's. I have no problem if a TD is worth 7 and only 6 if you decide to go for 2.
Carolina may play in warm weather, but they were built like a cold weather team. Hardly fits the scenario presented. Denver also may have had Davis, but they still had Elway. Hardly our definition cold weather team. If you don't believe this to be true, explain NOs record at home and away.
Because Goodell is a deity among men. He knows more than any mere mortal and can sense what is best for the millions of football fans using his superpowers. How dare you question his brilliance! Us mere peons cannot fathom the vast awesomeness that is his genius, ego, and sheer amazingness. Now excuse me, I need to go to NFL.com, the Temple of all that is Goodell in the universe. There I will worship his holiness with the Goodellian mantra: if it ain't broke, fix it until it is!
