I'm liking the new extra point

[Jay Z]

The 20 yard kick was becoming tedious. So for me it works. I suppose it's goofy to start back farther for a kick, but it's not like anyone ever ran a fake out of that formation anyway, even when the 2 point rule came into play.

The whole extra point in itself is a gimmick anyway, may as well change things if the kick is becoming automatic.

[Reaser]

Have to wait until it plays out in the regular season. Preseason never tells the story. Kind of like how they used the preseason stats from last year as evidence of how the change 'worked', leaving out that most of the misses came by kickers (and a punter) who were bagging groceries a week later and/or never kicked in the regular season.

I think it's a gimmick aimed at people with a mental deficiency giving them a need for manufactured 'entertainment'/'excitement' since they lack the ability to go 15 seconds without someone or something 'entertaining' them. Not really fans of football, just watching 'something' in their need to be entertained. I never like when sports make rule changes aimed towards that. I personally don't need manufactured and manipulated 'entertainment'/'excitement' for every aspect of a game or a sport.
-
NASCAR is a decent example, got popular with it being how it should be - but that wasn't good enough for the networks and the people running things. They wanted to bring in non-nascar fans, so they changed rules, changed how the champion is determined, etc ... to make it more 'exciting'. What they got was a short term spike in popularity and then went down and now most longtime/actual nascar fans think nascar is a joke as it currently is, and all those new 'fans' (never loyal) are gone now. So the changes were made for people who never cared and aren't watching anyways.
-
Though I don't think this will end up being a big deal, once the regular season starts there's only going to be a handful more kicks missed than in recent years (it wasn't "automatic"), a majority of the coaches (say 30 out of 32) aren't going to go crazy going for two more frequently than usual - they'll kick because it'll still have nearly twice the success rate. It'll be the same as it's been except it'll look stupid being further back and there will be confusion and annoying delays when officials are trying to figure out how to handle penalties and where to spot the ball.

What I won't like:

- When a team loses because of a missed gimmick PAT ... because that's what football needed, games being decided by a gimmick rule change. 'Exciting' . . .

- When there's a bad snap and instead of the holder running or passing for the conversion - instead completing a pass that'll be 10 yards short of the goalline.

- When a team gets 2 points after giving up a touchdown. Nothing makes more sense than gaining an opportunity for 2 points and ultimately being rewarded for and after giving up a TD - a failure.

- When some coach gets 'smart' and takes a knee after a TD because it'll make more sense guaranteeing a two possession lead than allowing for the slim chance that the defense could score 2 if something goes wrong. (e.g. up 3, 30 seconds to go, 3rd and goal, score TD to go up 9, take a knee on the conversion ... because conceivably something could go 'wrong' and the defense scores 2 pts and your 9 point lead would be 7 and you'd be kicking off.)

[TodMaher]

As soon as the games count the all these extra two-point conversion attempts we are seeing in the preseason will disappear.

[Citizen]

I agree with Tod -- the decision to go for 2 will be dictated by the score and the clock, just like before.

[JWL]

I think it's a gimmick aimed at people with a mental deficiency giving them a need for manufactured 'entertainment'/'excitement' since they lack the ability to go 15 seconds without someone or something 'entertaining' them. Not really fans of football, just watching 'something' in their need to be entertained. I never like when sports make rule changes aimed towards that. I personally don't need manufactured and manipulated 'entertainment'/'excitement' for every aspect of a game or a sport...

I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed.

I can argue that the PAT was a gimmick a long time ago. See, if I made NFL scoring rules, there would not be a point after or a 2-pt try. A touchdown gets scored and then that is it. Then it is kickoff time.

Hey, you made a 3-pointer. Now you get to take a free throw.

Hey, you hit a homer. Now you get to immediately go back to the plate. You get to hit the ball from a tee. You get one chance to hit the ball and try to reach base.

It should be a field goal or a touchdown. Why does there even have to be an extra point? Just 'cause that's the way it always was?

I loved when the 2-pt conversion entered the NFL in 1994. I'd prefer to see that all the time over point after kicks. But, again, I'd really prefer touchdowns and that's it. Making touchdowns an automatic seven points would be fine with me.

[Reaser]

I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed.

Well since the NFL (Goodell, Competition Committee, etc) has said in interviews and stood at the podium and said it was being considered for change and ultimately changed to add "excitement" and make it more "exciting", I assume it was changed to make it more 'exciting'. More 'exciting' for who? I'm not sure - naturally Goodell said "the fans want excitement on every play" but I would/did assume that it's for people that need manufactured 'excitement' - since the average person didn't hang their head and whine about being bored during a 20 yard kick and isn't going to be on the edge of their seat screaming with excitement for a 33 yard kick.

[oldecapecod11]

by JWL » Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:07 pm
..........Reaser wrote:
..........I think it's a gimmick aimed at people with a mental deficiency...
"I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed..."

Little do you realize that it is the bathroom break that will determine the life of this rule.
If the sponsors and concessionaires determine that less beer is being sold because people do not have time
for frequent "duty calls," then the rule will go the way of the face-mask tackle.
The advertisers will rise up and instruct the Goodfella that the rule must go - they are losing money. POOF! It will be gone.
You must keep in mind, JW, if he had a bathroom break, King Kong might never have reached the top
of the Empire State Building.

[TodMaher]

I can argue that the PAT was a gimmick a long time ago..

The PAT was never a "gimmick." It has always been a part of the game. In fact, in the early days of the game wasn't the PAT worth almost much as a touchdown?

Also, back in the 1933 the NFL was so desperate for teams to make the PAT they moved the goal posts up to the goal line. And then as kickers gotten better over the years they've been doing everything to make it the opposite. First moving the goal posts back to the end line (1974), the two-point conversion (1994) and now the 15-yard line nonsense.

[Gary Najman]

I agree with your overall point but not so much the above paragraph. Maybe the non-football fan watching an NFL game may get up to grab more food or go to the bathroom immediately after a touchdown but before commercials. Maybe. I doubt this is why the rule was changed.

Well since the NFL (Goodell, Competition Committee, etc) has said in interviews and stood at the podium and said it was being considered for change and ultimately changed to add "excitement" and make it more "exciting", I assume it was changed to make it more 'exciting'. More 'exciting' for who? I'm not sure - naturally Goodell said "the fans want excitement on every play" but I would/did assume that it's for people that need manufactured 'excitement' - since the average person didn't hang their head and whine about being bored during a 20 yard kick and isn't going to be on the edge of their seat screaming with excitement for a 33 yard kick.

Something I miss when I watch a game on TV immediatily after the extra point (yes, you can laugh) is the shot of the referee giving the scoring signal. It was a staple of the networks broadcasting the NFL in the 70s and 80s, but by the 90s it was gone.

In my opinion, I liked the extra point the way it was. Sure, it's boring, but it's part of the game's history and gives some extra time to the fans to go for a snack or to the bathroom. I also think is good for the kickers (and in fact the whole special teams) to get in shape for the field goals.

[NWebster]

Definately gimmicky. But I guess I like it better than a play that I don't even care to watch.

The thing is with professionalism becoming more professional and players practicing year round, etc kicking got too easy. Offensive and defensive players may improve but they compete against other improving players. The goal posts never improved, so this is what they do to make up for it.

The coolest two proposals I heard both harken back to rugby. Either the PAT has to be kicked from where the players cross the goal line (would encourage up the gut versus wide plays at the goal line - another happy accident) or the player who scores has to kick, or both.

But I like rugby.