# Three point conversion proposal

Just an idea I’m throwing out for discussion.

The NFL currently allows a conversion attempt from the two yard line for two points. How about a second conversion attempt option from further back - let’s say the seven yard line - for three points.

I feel it would be a good idea. It would give a team that’s fallen behind more opportunities to try to catch up. And bumping up the points might make conversion attempts more popular and reduce extra point attempts, which have become virtually automatic and therefore boring.

I don’t think it’s significantly more difficult to score from the 7. Maybe from the 20, but by the time you move far enough back to make it challenging the success rate will drop drastically and the play would only get used in desperation, not strategically.

Two point conversions from the two yard line only succeed about 50% of the time. So it would seem a three point conversion from the seven yard line would be significantly more difficult. Somebody with access to a good database could tell us how often a team scores a touchdown from the seven yard line on third downs, which would be approximately the same situation.

But I’m not fixed on the seven yard line - it could be moved up to the five yard line or back to the ten yard line if that works better. I’d want it to be somewhere where the success rate is around 33% so the three options were equivalent in a points:difficulty ratio.

3 point conversions are the same worth as a field goal. That’s giving way to much importance to the conversion. So, no, I think if you want that many points you need to have another drive.

I thought you could get an offensive penalty on a 2 point conversion that would result in a replay from the 7, so there may be some statistics for that.

I agree with Telemark that it’s too many points to extend a touchdown to a potential 9 point play, except that would be somewhat moderated by a low success rate.

4th and 7 would be the equivalent situation to measure against. It would be interesting to see what kind of play would predict a 33% success rate. But even then is it enough of a risk to justify it? The extra point is close to 100% success, a 2 pointer drops to 50%. Is 33% low enough to justify another point that could be of such great significance in a game?

4th and goal from the 7 is what I meant here.

This is a solution in search of a problem. Football ain’t broke, and doesn’t need fixing.

Yeah Ditto

So would you repeal the two point conversion rule and go back to just kicking extra points?

Again, that would involve fixing something that isn’t broken. I like the game as it exists today. I would not change it in any significant way. Hated that thing they did in preseason with making extra-points 30ish yards.

One way I think the game could be vastly improved would be if they dragged Roger Goodell out to the fifty yardline and sodomized him with a cattle prod every time he suggests anything. And did it at half time of every London game. Including retroactive proddings for all London games previously played…maybe do this as part of the Super Bowl pregame festivities this year.

I mostly agree with Oakminster, other than he seems to be letting Goodell off way to easily

I would get rid of the extra point attempt and just award 7 points for any TD without a two point conversion attempt. Obviously, you’d still have the option to take 6 points and try for two.

Why bother with something that is converted >99% of the time? Over the course of a game, this would save several minutes of time. Time that could be spent watching commercials.

How about choosing to kick from any point, with a sliding scale of points for distance, say a point value equal to one times the first digit of the yard line. Two point kick outside the 20, 3-points outside the 30, etc. A team down by eleven could tie with a touchdown and a 50-yard kicked conversion. Double the points for crossing the goal line on a play, so really, a team down by 16 could tie the game with a TD and then a hail mary (for ten points) from midfield. Theoretically possible to score 24 points on a single possession, putting almost no game mathematically out of reach.

Might make mathematical sense but I think 99% of NFL fans would reject it as “too complicated.”

Nothing is too complicated for anyone who understands the definitions of most penalties. Multiplying 3x2 probably would challenge the intellect of most football fans, though.

You are ten points behind, you just scored a touchdown, you need four to tie or five to win. How hard is it to evaluate the options? Do you go for the tie or the lead, if only seconds are left on the clock?

Was the game broken before they introduced the two point conversion? Was its lack a problem that needed to be fixed?

More specifically, I believe that 3 point differentials following a TD are likely to be much less common than 2 point differentials following a TD.

It be funner if they lost points if they missed.

Be a lot more punting going on.

I say a TD should be three things: 4 points for getting into the endzone, 2 points for touching the ball down (without getting tackled first, stepping out or fumbling) and a conversion attempt from 12 yards straight back (but at least nine yards from the sideline) from the spot of the touching-down; if a receiver does a toenail catch on the way out of bounds, it will be a 4-pt score with a conversion opportunity.