I like it. Some of the alternate proposals in this thread are just wacky. I would not have liked it moved to the 1, as then a QB sneak would get it in half the time, and that’s just boring. This strikes the right balance: kick is still a ‘should make’ but not a guarantee, and brings it back as a meaningful play. I think we’re going to see a lot of exciting games this season as a result of this change.
Completely agree. I have never heard a fan or broadcaster or anyone ever complain about the extra point. Why is it a problem if 99.5% of them are converted? Why in the world would you want to put greater weight of the game’s outcome on the freaking extra point? How many people watch football games to see kickers compete?
Doing a little math the apparent width of the goal pasts at the 15 yard line is ~14 degrees; the view from a newly widened hash-mark at the 2 yard line is ~22 degrees. Even taking kicking at an angle across the line of scrimmage into account I’ve got to believe the 15 yard attempt is harder.
Oh, and I’m for the rule change…
On Mike and Mike the other day they said the stat for extra points is 97%, compared to 95% for field goals from the 15. I can’t verify those numbers, but whatever the numbers this will be a negligible change that will have little to no impact on games.
Actually, the chance of scoring on a running play from the one is about 53%. The chance on a kick is better than 97%, as close to a guaranteed point you can get.
Someone with better math skills than I can probably work this out, but if Team A and Team B both score 4 touchdowns in the game, what are the final score probabilities if Team A always goes for two and Team B only kicks the PAT?
Of course, to be fair, what happens to the same scoring outcomes with the 2-pt try from the 2 (46% chance) vs kicking at the 15 (95%)?
If I am doing the expected point calc right, then when scoring 4 TDs:
PAT from 1-yd: Team A 4.25 pts vs Team B 3.88 pts
PAT from 2-yd or 15-yd: Team A 3.68 pts vs Team B 3.8 pts
With the rule change, there is still no reason for the coaches to do anything but kick unless they are desperate.
From the 1-yd line, the 2-pt try moves from desperation to an actual game winning strategy.
The expected number of points = (the number of PAT kicks) x (the probability of a kick being good) + 2 x (the number of 2-point conversions) x (the probability of a 2-point conversion being good).
The kick is worth more if the chance of making it is more than twice the chance of making a 2-point conversion (which seems obvious, now that I look at it). Then again, you have to take the probabilities of each one being run back by the defense for 2 points - and, for that matter, the probability that a blocked PAT can then be run in by the offense for 1 or 2 points, assuming that is allowed and depending on how many points it would be worth.
I am not really sure what the NFL is trying to accomplish with THIS change with the PAT. But I have a guess.
As pointed out already, the stats say the change will be negligible.
If they WANT to make the PAT more exciting, or more relavant, or whatever, this isn’t going to do it.
And as others have also said, I agree that this a solution for no real problem. I think the PAT is fine as is. No need to tweak it, but if you need to tweak it, this really does nothing.
I am sure folks will have their opinions on this, but I think there is a deeper agenda. And it has to do with money.
They have to make people want to stay in front of the TV while the PAT is attempted. They lose people to channel surfing, station changing, bathroom breaks, whatever…
I think this is the beginnng of a bigger change, and the NFL is just trying to take baby steps to get their audience to accept it.
I am not sure what this will ultimately turn into, but this is all about ad revenue. IMHO, of course.
As posted in the OP, the numbers are 99.7% vs 92.4%. That’s actually a fairly significant difference, as you’ll see one point differences more frequently in games, leading to more critical 2 point conversions.
Edit: It may seem like a smaller difference than it is. That means there’s a 25x greater chance to miss. If there are 5 touchdowns average per game, that’s about 1/3rd of games being affected by a missed extra point.
I don’t see the source for those numbers in the link in the OP.
I do see in the comments section of that linked article the interesting wrinkle of penalties. Holding and now you have a 43-yard attempt. Can you then switch to the 2-point try? If you can, should you?
I believe you can change your mind after a penalty.
I assume you could still fake the kick and go for the 2 point conversion, but it would have to be from the 15 yard line. If you elect to put the ball on the 2 yard line you would be locked into a 2-point conversion attempt.
If the NFL wants to make extra points (and field goals, for that matter) more of a challenge, I would prefer to just narrow the goal posts somewhat and get rid of that stupid rule that they have to use special balls for kicking situations.
The special balls make it harder to kick.
Exactly so. They introduced the “K-balls” in 1999, because kickers and punters had been working with their equipment managers to break in / loosen up the balls that were going to be used in games (including, allegedly, such tactics as baking them in ovens, and bouncing them around in clothes dryers). Kicking accuracy (and punting distance) had been steadily increasing for years, and the NFL believed that the broken-in balls were part of the reason why (and that the strength of the kicking game was leading to, among other things, teams trying field goals rather than “going for it” on 4th down, and this was deemed to be less exciting for the fans).
The idea behind the K-ball is that it’s more difficult to kick, not easier. K-balls are, essentially, fresh out of the box, and completely un-broken-in. I think that they now let them be rubbed down, to take some of the sheen off of the leather, but that’s it.
Despite that change, what we saw in the stats was a year or two of slightly poorer accuracy on field goals, and then, as the kickers adjusted, accuracy continued to improve.
Although I agree that narrowing the goal posts would make it harder, and I like the idea in theory, has the NFL ever changed something like this? The width of the goalposts, as far as I know, have never changed. To narrow it would make the kicking records/stats different from the moment they did it, and that’s not something the NFL has a history of doing.
The field has always been the same length and the same width. The only change I can remember that was significant was moving the goal posts back to the endline, which added 10 yards to every kick, but it didn’t change anything significant. Except extra points, of course. But FG’s are still measured by the distance they travel.
I believe, although I’m not positive, that the NFL changed the hash marks from college, making the kicks easier from an angle perspective. But I honestly don’t know if the NFL moved their hash marks in, the NCAA moved theirs out, or if they’ve always been different.
I’m fine with this change. I would also have been fine with making touchdowns worth 7 points unless the scoring team chose to go for two. There’s just no strategy or suspense in extra points now. Heck, the whole play is just a vestigial reminder of the rugby-like origins of football, when getting the ball across the goal line was only for the purpose of getting the right to try the kick (which actually was worth more points than the touchdown, to begin with).
I have seen that happen, but rarely. I think they do it when the flow of the game is getting the network behind on their ad breaks (lots of long possessions mean fewer changes of possession mean not as many chances for commercials).
I know I’ve also seen the very rare touchdown-commercial-extra point-commercial-kickoff-commercial trifecta. That’s something that will really piss off your viewers.
I’m pretty sure the NFL moved their hash marks in from what the NCAA uses. They must have done that several decades ago, though. Back in the mists of time, I believe there were numerous cross-hatch marks on the field (hence the term ‘gridiron’), and the ball could be placed for the snap within a few yards of the sideline, even.
This would be awesome.
Some stats from here:
- Over the past 10 seasons, field goal conversion rates from the new XP distance were 91.6%.
- Over the past 3 seasons, they were 94.4%.
- Last season, they were 96.7%.
- When lined up at the center of the field, kickers have made 97.6% of their 30-35 yard field goals over the past two seasons.
It’s actually pretty surprising to me how consistently field goal kickers have been improving over the years. For years I’ve been one of those guys arguing that coaches should go for it on 4th down much more often, but the improvement in kicking is pushing things towards field goals instead.
The NFL is happy to tinker with the rules, and doesn’t care about the “sanctity” of records.
You know, teams are scoring more touchdowns these days than they did 50 years ago. Maybe we should make the field 140 yards long.
I don’t remember the year, but Tex Schramm was the lead proponent for the narrow hashmarks we use now.
I have heard two reasons for them, not sure which is correct, knowing Schramm, likely both:
- It opened up the field for the offense by letting them start closer to the center and use the field more effectively thus driving scoring up.
- It looked better on television.