Going for two

The NFL is pondering changing the extra point rule because it’s almost automatic now.  That’s not exactly the case on the college level, but given there’s a certain percentage of folks who think that anything the NFL adopts should automatically be considered by the NCAA, you might be interested in reading what Chase Stuart has to say about the prospects of a mandated two-point play rule.

About these ads

19 Comments

Filed under Stats Geek!, Strategery And Mechanics

19 responses to “Going for two

  1. uglydawg

    Interesting idea….to make a TD seven points automatically and give the scoring team the option of wagering a point in a two point attempt (they’d end up with either 6 or 8) or being happy with the seven.
    I still like the (my) idea of field goals being weighted, point wise, disproportionally to the distance they are kicked from. Reward a team for driving it deep and take away from the team that just has a freak who can kick it from their own side of the field.
    Also, take the kickers out of the game in college overtime. No field goals and you go for two on TDs. That will eliminate the 4 and 5 overtime marathons.

    • Macallanlover

      Agree that this is an interesting concept that deserves discussion and study. One reason I like the idea of gambling with taking a point off the board is it makes the, current, two-point play worth one point which is more proportionate for a 3 yard play to the average TD drive (which is similar to your thoughts about weighting FGs by distance/degree of difficulty).

      My idea for revising the OT to shorten them, make them more exciting, and reward the best offense and defense b y giving them an equal shot is to cut it to 8 plays. I would give each team the ball on their own 20 yard line and allow them to run 4 plays with a full field to work with, and the other team a full field to defend. Then allow Team 2 the same opportunity for four plays. Winner will be the most net yardage gained after four offensive plays. (Should one team cross the goal line, they still get the remainder of their 4 four plays to add to their total yardage.) If a team turns the ball over on their 4 plays, give them a yardage penalty TBD, I would say a negative 20 yards. It would be eight plays where every fan would be on their feet, and no one complaining about it, and would reduce injury risk due to fatigue. Winning team gets one point added to the regulation score that ended in a tie (this would change the betting issue where a tie game could end up in an 8 point differential and blows the over/under total through the roof.)

      • Silver Creek Doug

        Mac, they ran that OT system in Georgia HS football for years (called it the penetration rule).

        It was confusing as hell for most fans to follow and now they run the CFB version, except for they start on the 15 instead of the 25.

        • Macallanlover

          As I recall, penetration was more than just a yardage measurement to decide the winner, maybe three factors. The drawback to me is it was based on plays during regulation (when you were calling plays for a different purpose), and it lacks the suspense of putting it all on the line. There would be GT type folks working slide rules, seems un-American to me as they don’t get football at all. The penetration rule seemed complicated but only because it was determined in arrears by stats from the game already played, not actually an OT period when the pressure of the game is on the line.

    • Just Chuck (The Other One)

      If yardage becomes a factor in point value, what would you think about adjusting the points on a touchdown play based on the yards to the goal line? Fewer points if it’s short yardage or maybe more if it’s the on the end of a long drive? How about adjusting the points if you score on a fourth down play instead of third?

      Do you think Saban would be in favor of any of these changes?

      • uglydawg

        Great point…but it’s comparing apples to oranges..or at least to pears.
        If that became the rule..then a really great offense would take the kickoff, down it on the one yard line..and then drive it 99 yards for 50 points.
        My point on the length of field goals (and admittedly this is an old saw for me) is that a team can get the ball at midfield, barely move it five or ten yards and then have some kid from Eastern Europe..who grew up playing soccer and doesn’t know a touchdown from a knee pad, kick it 55 yards and get three points…Where another team drives it to the other teams five and gets the same three points. Admittedly, Georgia has benefited from the way it is many, many times (If Lewis Grizzard had a son he would have named him Kevin).
        On the other hand, the first time Georgia lost a game because time ran out with the ball on the forty and they needed three points, I’d puke.

        • James

          ” some kid from Eastern Europe..who grew up playing soccer and doesn’t know a touchdown from a knee pad”

          So basically that team is rewarded for being more skilled than “another team.” Kinda the point, right?

  2. Russ

    My crazy rule change is to award points for a kickoff that goes through the uprights. You’d end runbacks and stop the stupid directional kicking crap.

  3. Tell the Saints the extra point is automatic.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000263575/Saints-vs-Jaguars-Multi-Lateral-TD-Missed-Field-Goal-12-21-03

    PAT’s are part of the kicking game. Put it on the 7. That will make it more interesting. Make the fake PAT worth 3. Make a 50 plus fg worth 5.
    There were 69 2-point conversions attempted in the NFL in 2013. I don’t how many they missed.

    • What fresh hell is this?

      PAT’s from the 7 probably wouldn’t be much different. I believe there’s a success rate of about 88% all the way out to about 42 yds or so. But your idea of a 3 pt conversion is really interesting.

  4. Mayor of Dawgtown

    I would do away with extra points altogether but for a different reason. The entire team busts their collective asses to score a tying TD that would send the game into OT and the &%^*$#^ kicker blows the extra point–loss! Screw it! Make every team go for 2 every time it scores a TD. Keep the 3 point FG but get rid of the 1 point extra point.

    • Let’s take the kicker out of the game all together. In the forties the center was the original kicker. He would push the ball back to the qb with his heel. Then they started hiking it -on account of tall qb’s … by 1960 the shotgun was invented. Don’t hike it to the qb at all. Cause that’s a gimme. Just let him start with it in his hands. When he moves, clock starts! Let’s not call it football anymore. Instead, let’s just call it “Handball”.
      I’m just joking Mayor.
      ;-)

  5. Debby Balcer

    I like the kicking game. Georgia has always had great kickers. Field goals,extra points and going for 2 all effect strategy if the game was only about a touchdown it would be more boring.

    • Debby Balcer

      I like the kicking game. Georgia has always had great kickers. Field goals,extra points and going for 2 all effect strategy if the game was only about a touchdown it would be boring.

      • PTC DAWG

        You can say that again!

        • Macallanlover

          LOL. I am also not in favor of getting rid of the kicking game but would like to tone down it’s impact a little. I would start with eliminating kickoffs and XPTs, and their role in OT. Maybe nothing after that, but FGs have become too large of a force in determining results, imo, and should continue to be studied.

    • Olddawg 55

      Out of the mouths of Babes…..the most appealing and logical of comments!!

  6. James

    I wonder what the impact on personnel would become. 25% of a successful drive (8 total points) is based on a binary 2 yard play, and conversely a defense needs to have the personnel and scheme to stop something like that to limit points per possession.

    Part of me likes this, but part of me also really likes the strategy involved in not forcing decisions.

    There’s another really important point here, which is that forcing teams to go for two takes away those special moments when a winning team goes for two for no reason at all except to run up the score. I’m thinking of Woodie Hays’s quote about going for three and Jim Harbaugh’s “what’s your deal” moment.