The reason it takes so long for TD to KO is they jam commercials in there so it takes much longer than it needs to on the field. There’s no reason they couldn’t run the between play clock and say they have to get the PAT play off and the kick-off kicked within the usual time limit. They don’t do this because they want to put the commercials in. I don’t see them eliminating the PAT just so they could cut a a commercial and speed it up. They could do that in any case. And if they keep all the commercials they have now and just eliminate the PAT, that would only make the fans who watched more bored.
Those of you complaining about all the play stoppage time to fit in TV commercials need to remind yourselves who pays for the whole spectacle.
I reject the idea that reducing the number of commercials during the game would cause the NFL to collapse.
They simply would make a little bit less money, as would the players. They aren’t going to willingly make less money, nor should they. Ultimately, business decisions ride on how hard you can squeeze the thing that allows you to make money, your customers, your viewers, your suppliers, before they decide they don’t want to do business with you anymore.
So, the NFL has large gaps in the action to sell commercials. That makes their viewers unhappy, but not unhappy enough to stop watching the games (yet).
…and get a DVR. I start watching about an hour after kickoff. Haven’t had to sit through commercials or other stoppages in about a decade.
I’d love to totally take the “foot” out of football. Who watches games to see Field Goals and Punts?
I say no punting or FG’s or PAT’s. The offense has four downs to get a First down, or eventually a TD. If they fail, the ball goes over to the other team. That would be so much more exciting, and the true football players (sorry, punters and kickers) would decide every game’s outcome. Leads would be harder to protect too, because you have to keep moving the ball instead of punting it 40 yards down field.
So, football is sports entertainment now?
No way. Field goals and punting add a huge strategic element to the game, IMHO. Football would be nowhere near as interesting if you take all those strategic elements out of it.
I like the idea of the upper crossbar, and you could fasten a net around the square to make it easy to judge. Ball winds up in the net, kick is good. Want the PATs to be less automatic, then make the trying team play with 10 men or the defenders play with 12. Or both, and let the defense run back blocked PATs for 2 points of their own.
You missed my point. I don’t believe that the NFL is looking to cut any commercials. That means cutting revenue, and that isn’t something the NFL is eager to do. No, what they are interested in is keeping as many eyes as possible glued to the tv station carrying the game, and reduce the channel changing as the commercials come on. When a TD is scored, many folks reach for the remote. Why do you think they said that they review every TD play now? Keeps many folks from instantly switching if they think a play might be overturned. But once the TD is deemed good, people switch. And it is because of the insufferable length of time between XP, commercial break, KO, Comm. Break. and then gsme play resumes.
If they can figure a way to put an extra 15-30 second spot here and there throughout the game without making the home audience notice too much, that’s what they will do.
And they will do it. XP kicks will be no more if the NFL can figure out a way to make more money by eliminating it.
That’s the simplest solution though. It eliminates the boring field goal play, but retains the current scoring outcomes so it doesn’t tamper with game strategy. Other solutions such as changing kicking distance or the width of the goalposts change the game strategy, which I don’t think should be changed just to eliminate some boredom.
But, the PAT kick wasn’t always 99.6% successful. As recently as the 1960’s it was in the 90%-95% range. Greater kick difficulty would restore the older equilibrium, not change the game to something it has never been.
Unless the goalposts are adjustable between plays, it would decrease the 3 pt. field goal completion rate. I suppose the ideal solution would be to move the kick distance back to attain the 90-95% range, but that changes the 2 pt conversion %.
Okay, actually this solution would change the 2 pt conversion rate since the defense would no longer have to defend against the extra point although they probably defend more against the 2 pt threat anyhow.
Why not just put a giant windmill in front of the goalposts, and the kicker has to get the ball between the blades?
If we start eliminating kicks, how will the Cowboys justify giving their kicker a 22.5 million dollar contract?
It would, but from what I’ve read, the NFL has, in recent years, also been considering additional changes to the rules (such as narrowing the goal posts) to make field goals more difficult, as well.
As has been noted, kickers in the NFL have become tremendously more accurate over the past 30-40 years. In the 1960s, extra points were successful around 95% to 97% of the time – still a very high percentage, but not quite “automatic” (and one should note that the goal posts were on the goal line until 1974, which meant that an XP was a 9-yard field goal). Accuracy on field goals was typically in the 50% - 55% range in the 1960s.
Field goal accuracy steadily rose throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, and is now over 80% (kickers are trying, and making, longer field goals these days, as well). A kicker who converted 70% of his field goals 30 or 40 years ago would have been an All-Pro. Today, he’d be out of a job.
The NFL, concerned about teams trying too many field goals (reasoning that a field goal is, generally, not an exciting play, compared to a touchdown, or a team going for it on 4th down), instituted the “K-ball” in 1999, with the intent of reducing accuracy, and making the field goal a less attractive option. However, it didn’t seem to have much, if any impact – field goal accuracy dropped a bit for a couple of years, then rebounded, as kickers adjusted to them.
I concur. Sure, you don’t see many PATs missed or blocked. That’s why it’s such a game-changer when it DOES happen. That, and regular PATs give kickers game experience with little challenge, keeping them sharp for more challenging field goals. If you’re going to eliminate the PAT kick, eliminate the field goal, too.
I don’t want to see either one happen; my worldview’s been screwed up enough as it is in recent years. Let them kick the damn ball.
Well, except when it’s not.
There were 5 PATs missed in the whole of the current NFL regular season.
In two of those games, the team that missed the PAT lost by 4, so, depending on what actually happened in the game, you might argue that the miss was a game-changing event. It might have meant that those teams were forced to try for a TD rather than a FG on their final drive of the game, which changes things quite dramatically.
In one case, the team that missed the PAT won the game by 4, and winning by 4 versus winning by 5 really doesn’t change anything at all.
In the other two games where the PAT was missed, the teams that missed the PAT either lost the game by 14 points (Detroit), or won the game by 17 points (Chicago). I very much doubt that the missed PAT was a “game-changer” in those cases.
I came in here to add this suggestion. Change the goalposts from uprights to a square (or rectangle). It’s solves another problem with field goals; and that is when sometimes the kick seems so high you’re never really sure if it was inside the post or outside.