43 yard XP? Competition committee is discussing it.

[dales804]

Competition committee discussing 43-yard extra point - NFL.com

NFL Media's Judy Battista reports the NFL Competition Committee is in preliminary talks about placing the ball at the 25-yard line for the point-after attempt. That would make the extra point a 43-yard attempt.

What are your thoughts? I have no problem with a longer distance but 43 yards seems like a lot. I had something in the range of 35 yards in mind but after reading 40-49 yard FGs were converted at 83% last year, I might be okay with that distance.

 

[Marinlik]

I am all for it. The XP today is one of the most boring plays in all sports. I would have no problem if it was longer so it was actually kind of a challenge. Now it's just a free point but where you still have an injury risk. So either make it a real challenge or remove it all together. I vote for making it a challenge. Kicking from the 25 would be good.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm okay with it. It feels a little weird to have a 43 yard kick be worth 1 point where a potentially shorter kick can be worth 3, but as it's an EXTRA point by definition, I can get over it. As BB said, when the PAT was put into the game it wasn't considered the 99.6% automatic play that it is today. It was meant to be earned, and that's what this would do.

As for the distance, I think it's important to make it so that the percentage of made PAT's is more than double the percentage of successful 2-pt conversions. If it's less than that, the mathematically better play over the long term becomes the 2-pt, and I prefer to keep that as a strategic/desperation option, not the norm.

 

[Nunchucks]

I like this idea a lot.

 

[patsinthesnow]

This could make games way more dramatic, and elevate the importance of having a great kicker even more.

 

[patchick]

This could make games way more dramatic, and elevate the importance of having a great kicker even more.

Putting the foot back in football!

I think the line should definitely be moved back; the PAT as it stands now is just not a good part of the game. But IMO the 25-yard line is too far, I'd go 20.

 

[borg]

MORE IMPORTANTLY..............most fantasy leagues give a bonus point for a 40+ yd FG......so what about the 43 yd EP???????
Geeks will be in a tizzy!!!!
Why Roger........ WHYYYYYYY?
I will only draft indoor kickers now.....see what you have created Roger!!! Discrimination of outdoor kickers. Get Eric Holder on the phone

 

[makoute]

Maybe there will be more 2 point conversion attempts.

 

[Gwedd]

I'm down with it, though I'd also prefer it to be from the 20, rather than the 25.

 

[ausbacker]

An idea that makes a heap of sense. Who would have thought?

 

[borg]

If there was ever a time the Pats need a healthy Gronk (besides playoff games and half season spurts).......... more two point conversions........bring in The Gronk.

For offensively challenged teams, this rule can't be helpful. Coaches will be forced to decide the lesser of two evils....a low % kick in bad conditions vs a low % two yard play.

The biggest upside of such a rule change is the new strategy component added into the game. Considering how many of the neophyte coaches are still over matched in the time management dept.... two minute drill/timeouts etc..... one would think BB has some advantage here.

 

[RDS11]

Maybe there will be more 2 point conversion attempts.

If I remember correctly, 2-point conversions are converted just below 50%.

If that's still accurate, then from a statistical perspective (and should the 2-point attempt still be tried from the 2-yard line), teams should always go for 2 points if the 1-point try move back to the 25-yard line.

 

[BradyManny]

No offense to the irrational folks on the competition committee, or the rational posters above who seem to be warm to the idea, but I think this idea is terrible.

Does anyone really want to see some amazing, hard-fought Tom Brady led 4th quarter comeback fall short because Ghost misses a 43 yard kick? Hell no. It's called the extra point, its largely trivial, its basically a given, and it makes going for two have more to lose.

I don't understand why the CC is trying to reinvent the wheel with gimmicky ideas, but recently they've had a few doozies.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I think it's a great idea.
1) The current PAT is way too automatic and as such is a total waste.
2) Actually puts some importance back on the "foot".
3) Will likely lead to more 2pt conversions attempts (teams trying to make up for missed PATs, games where weather makes 43yd PATs sketchy)

I can argue a bit about the exact distance it should be (35yd? 38yd? 43yd?) but in general I'm all for it.

(BTW, anyone happen to know what the conversion rates for PATs were way back when they were first put into the game?)

 

[primetime]

Should be from the 10 if you want to make it risk-neutral (that is, where a kick's success rate is about twice that of a 2-point play since the points are worth twice as much), though I still think you'd kick because of risk aversion. Also not sure 1 point in football is worth that much on the margin, so it might be smart to be risk averse.

But this is really about increasing scoring even more, anyways.

 

[Marinlik]

No offense to the irrational folks on the competition committee, or the rational posters above who seem to be warm to the idea, but I think this idea is terrible.

Does anyone really want to see some amazing, hard-fought Tom Brady led 4th quarter comeback fall short because Ghost misses a 43 yard kick? Hell no. It's called the extra point, its largely trivial, its basically a given, and it makes going for two have more to lose.

I don't understand why the CC is trying to reinvent the wheel with gimmicky ideas, but recently they've had a few doozies.

But it was never designed to be a given. It wasn't when it was first implemented. Now it's just a useless play where you add some injury risk. I would love if they made the change. It would make the game more interesting.

 

[Sicilian]

No offense to the irrational folks on the competition committee, or the rational posters above who seem to be warm to the idea, but I think this idea is terrible.

Does anyone really want to see some amazing, hard-fought Tom Brady led 4th quarter comeback fall short because Ghost misses a 43 yard kick? Hell no. It's called the extra point, its largely trivial, its basically a given, and it makes going for two have more to lose.

I don't understand why the CC is trying to reinvent the wheel with gimmicky ideas, but recently they've had a few doozies.

I understand the sentiment, but assuming teams are still going for the PAT as the go to after TD method, you're likely to see more situations where the deficit at the end of the game is 5 or 6 points instead of 7. So yes, a 7 point deficit would require a Tom Brady comeback drive AND a Gost 43 yarder, but the go ahead touchdown prior to that would have required the same from the other team. It's equal.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wouldn't this mean fewer 2 pt conversion attempts, since you'd have one play to score from 25 yards out?

 

[Sicilian]

Wouldn't this mean fewer 2 pt conversion attempts, since you'd have one play to score from 25 yards out?

I'm assuming they leave the 2-pt conversion distance at the 2 yard line. This does remove the possibility of a fake PAT, but those happen so infrequently as is that I doubt we'd notice.

 

[snowplow82]

Of course, putting the ball on the 25 yard line would all but eliminate the 2-pt conversion try. How about putting the ball on the 10 yard line and only allowing drop kick tries for 1 point? That way we could bring Flutie out of retirement.