You may have heard that the NFL has decided to move the extra point attempt to the fifteen-yard line, while leaving two-point conversions at the two. As Chase Stuart nicely points out, given the current skill level for making 33-yard field goals, this move is a lot more form than substance.
But it should raise a real bumper crop for second guessing.
What we may see, though, is a missed extra point costing a team a game. Or, perhaps, causing a team to win a game. That could happen if say, a team is down 20-10, scores a touchdown and misses the extra point, and then gets the ball back down 4. No longer strained by conservatism, a team may wind up scoring the game-winning touchdown instead of settling for a field goal. So, what happens first: a team loses a game because it misses an extra point, or a team wins a game because of it? And yes, posing that question is a sign of how bored I am by this news.
Man, I can hear the pundits now.
Stuart points out the math that the coaches will ignore – “From an expected value standpoint, an extra point now drops from 1.00 points to 0.95 points; one could argue, therefore, that a 2-point conversion now needs to be successful only 48% of the time to make it the better proposition.” – but, again, that’s in the League, where kickers are far more consistent than they are at the college level.
Which leads me to ponder the obvious – what would happen if the same rule were adopted for the college game? I don’t know what the overall success rate is (and I’m not going to take the time to do the math), but you can look here and see that while there are plenty of kickers sporting high percentages, unsurprisingly, the overall rate of success isn’t anywhere near the NFL’s 96%. Which would mean the value of going for two would increase in collegiate football.
I just wonder how all of this would fit into Mark Richt’s world view. Gee, how has that kind of stuff worked out in the past?
There’s a difference between coaching conservatively and coaching scared. What happened on the ensuing kickoff reminded me so much of what happened in the overtime loss to Michigan State in the Outback Bowl after the 2011 season. Georgia ran out to an early lead, blew it, took the game into overtime and was on the verge of pulling out the win after a Rambo interception. The conservative thing to do then was check Blair Walsh’s stats on the season, realize that he was money on kicks of 40 yards or less, a bad check on anything longer, and pound the ball three straight plays to improve the odds of his making a winning kick. Richt instead chose to run Aaron Murray around on second down for a loss, taking Walsh out of his comfort zone, and kick on third down. The end result: a miss and a loss.
Let’s just say I’d rather not cross that bridge.
Get The Picture 
The whole “points for kicking” thing should be reviewed. I’ll be a broken record here and say again that I believe long field goals should be discounted pointwise because they are rewarding a team for having not driven the ball closer to the goal. Short FGs should give more points than long FGs. Maybe 1 pt. for a 60 yarder…2 for a 40 yarder, 3 for a twenty and four for less than 20. It’s so radial that people dismiss it off hand as eccentric and crazy…but give it some thought and it makes sense. ( I think it would also cut down on having to play overtime to break ties).
This is like picking Vandy to win the SEC. If it happens one day, remember who dreamed it up…if it never happens, you’ll forget I was crazy enough to suggest it.
I’ll try not to mention it again…but no promises.
LikeLike
I’d go the other way, make fgs where the line of scrimmage is the 10 or closer only get 1 point, from the 10 to the 20, 2 pts, outside the 20, 3 points.
I’d copy the NFL on the extra point rule.
LikeLike
the math is to never punt and to always go for 2. coaches arent smart enough to do it.
CMR is not different.
LikeLike
I believe you when u say the math says never punt and always go for 2 but I would love to see what the actual numbers are. Does it provide a very small advantage or a significant one? Do you have a link?
LikeLike
sure the Chris Brown and Bill C. have articles about it.
but basically a punt gains little and gives up a shot at success. It is the bunting of football.
2012 for UGA was a particularly bad year for XP. Morgan hit 94% while UGA was 60% on 2 point conversions.
63/67 for morgan. So we take all 67 of those chances away and convert them @ 60% for 2 points. Morgan earned UGA 63 points at the expense of 80.4 points.
So depends on how bad your kicker is and how good your offense is at converting. Morgan has been better since 2012 so the advantage is less.
LikeLike
I assume the sample size for the 2 point conversions was pretty small. I wonder if that 60% would hold up going for it every time all season. Also say we go 5 for 5 in 2 point conversions against SC next year and win by 28 pts, but go 0 for 3 in 2 point conversation against Bama and lose by 2 pts. Would people be after the coaches’ heads?
LikeLike
2012 had more 2pt conversion than most years for some reason, but yes small sample. But also probably get better at it if you practice it and design plays for it, but then people get better at defending it.
I think that you touched on the reason why. Lose a game because a kicker misses an extra point and the fans blame the kicker, lose a game because you went for 2 and miss and the fans blame the coach.
Coaches are just people and most people place more value on the potential loss than they do on an potential gain, risk aversion IOW.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2004/tis-better-have-rushed-and-lost-never-have-rushed-all
old data, but something to look at.
basically the NFL converted 55% of plays were 3 yards were needed for a 1st down. I picked these since this gives a much larger sample size where 3+ yards gained equals success.
The NFL would have been more successful if they had run the ball everytime instead of passing more often, (62% vs 49% rushing v passing)
So for a team like UGA this year with 4 return OL and Nick Chubb, every time there is 3 yards or less for success they should run the ball. any down. 4th and 3. run the ball. no matter where you are. run the ball. Score a TD, go for 2 and hand the ball off. If you convert 2pt attempts at greater than 50% it is always better than kicking an extra point.
LikeLike
Yea, really interesting stuff. Something I have never understood are situations where a team is running the ball well, bustin’ 3, 4, and 5 yard gains every play and then when they are 4th and 1/2 or 1 – punt. If u are at your own 20 I can see it, but if you are past your own 40 and driving, hell go for it. Of course there is always “fourth and dumb”. It just takes one of those to make u gunshy.
LikeLike
I don’t know if the decision comes down to risk aversion or self interest, or a combination of both. After all, a coach’s #1 priority isn’t winning games, it’s keeping his job.
LikeLike
Yea, like in the ’70’s if you were in charge of buying computers, you knew no one ever got fired for buying IBM. Why take the chance, even if there were better machines for less money.
LikeLike
I recall in the 2000 Tech game, Donnan kept going for 2 and it arguably cost Georgia the game.
Tech jumped out to a 24-0 lead at halftime, but the second half was all Georgia. We scored 2 touchdowns and both times Donnan elected to go for 2 but failed to convert. With about 8 minutes left in the game, Georgia faced a 4th and about 16 on the Tech 22. Had JD taken the PAT after scoring both times, Georgia could have kicked a field goal from the 22 and been within a score, at home and with all the momentum. Instead, we had to try and go for 2 because we were down by 12 and a FG did no good. Of course, we went on to lose the game. I’ll never forget, afterward Donnan defended going for 2 points with, “The sheet [he was consulting] said go for 2!”
A few years later the “go for 2” strategy was amended to only doing it late in a game when you absolutely know you need to do it. But it was too late for mumblin Jim.
LikeLike
Heard you the first time, Ug, but didn’t reply because I wanted to peruse it a bit. Ain’t done yet. While it values the play over becoming “Field Goal U” again, there is something to say for rewarding a long kick with more points, the opposite of what you propose. Your way of looking at it is good, but essentially downgrades the kicking part to nada as far as athleticism is concerned. And you should mention your idea as often as you wish here. If it bothers people, fuck’em.
Shades of Kevin Butler! We would have to downgrade our precious memories, even the attempts that miss, and most certainly there is a good thang here when we consider last yr’s GT game. But what if the kicking shoe is on the other kicking foot? Wouldn’t we want to be able to get back into a game with 1 sec left by kicking a long tying field goal rather than go for the lucky and boring “Hail Mary” from the 35 yd line? The opposition’s ability to run back the kicked miss is still an exciting part of the game.
How much does backing up affect the 2 pointer, Senator? One play, and instead of going for the win when the ball is closer to the goal line, we boringly would elect to kiss your sister and take your chances in overtime – automatically. Don’t think it’s time has come yet. Backing up dismisses the two-point play more often. Don’t like that.
LikeLike
As always, much appreciated thoughts, Cojones! I wouldn’t want to take back Munson breaking his chair, but I’d take back GT’s lucky-assed long one to break our hearts last year.
All just time-killin’ food for thought, though.
LikeLike
Just the mention of Kevin brings back sweet memories. As Lewis once said, “Son, Why Your Name Is Kevin”. I was at that game. ..Lewis, I know you are Present with HIM.🎈
LikeLike
+1 Joy
LikeLike
Nice Bonnie Raitt reference Senator. One of the many reasons you are the best. Has AJC asked you to write their headlines yet?
LikeLike
In Rugby you kick the point after from the place you score–if you score in the corner you kick from the sidelines. You might remember old movies where you would see the runner run to between the goal posts and TOUCH the ball down–for an easy chip shot from right in front of the goal. Now that would really make things interesting !
LikeLike
Rugbydawg79, you are dead-on here. Make the scoring team kick the extra point from the point where the ball crossed the goal line. Not exactly the same as Rugby (where you have to physically touch the ball down and come straight out from that point to kick), but it would make the kick more interesting! For that matter, to solve the targeting/dangerous tackle situation, how about we issue yellow or red cards like Rugby does? The first time your high-priced cornerback spears somebody and you have to play 10 on 11 for 10 minutes against an Aaron Rodgers or Tom “I didn’t know” Brady, your entire team would jump the offending player and make dadgum sure he didn’t do THAT again!
LikeLike
If you want to make extra points interesting, have the player that scored the touchdown have to kick the extra point.
LikeLike
I like the NFL change to the 15 yard line for XP kicks, 20 would have been better, but I wish the 2 point try was from the 3 yard line. Still, an interesting change that will add excitement. Kickers will see a nice increase in pay soon is my bet.
LikeLike