I was taught that a touchdown is seven points since I was a kid. So the extra point has been considered automatic for at least two decades.
I don’t see the point in going from 99% to 94%. There’s still no tension, as it almost certainly isn’t going to fail, and, if it does, it probably will have no effect on the game.
But, hey, if some people like it better, more power to them. I only watch the Super Bowl, anyways.
99 of 100 is “almost certainly.” 19 out of 20 is not, and it certainly has an impact on a tied game. I think the rule change has - for once - been an unqualified success.
In D&D terms, it’s the difference between only failing on a roll of “01” on a d100 (when XPs were at 99+%), versus only failing on a roll of “1” on a d20.
You’re right, I was using his (rounded) numbers. I was saying that people tend to look at a difference between, say, 98% and 99.99% as being negligible, but it depends on the context, since 1.99% seems insignificant, but 200x the failure rate does not.
Not sure what you’re saying - the Panthers won by 3, not the Saints. If the kick had been good, and the rest of the game had been the same, the Panthers would still have won, by 6. So it was an interesting but ultimately meaningless play.
Whoops. I misremembered who did what and didn’t look closely at that post, and thought it was the Panthers who had returned the kick.
Because it makes part of the game meaningful when it had previously atrophied to irrelevance. Or, depending on how you are asking the question, because the rule change actually does what the NFL wanted it to do.
I understand why they did it, but it rubs me the wrong way. If the rationale is that it’s pretty much automatic, then just make it automatic. I always thought an extra point was a dumb concept anyway.
I notice that life is starting to resemble 90s All Sport commercials though: