Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Of course because of how used-to the scoring being what it is after all this time, I would never want anything to be changed. It's either a may as well keep it as is, or perhaps this is the way it should have always been in the first place.

However, there is some argument that perhaps FGs got too much point-value in comparison to the TD. A team drives into their opponents' territory three times during a game but cannot punch it in - so they kick 3 FGs - but their opponent drives into their territory just once but at least punch it in for a TD, should that team actually lose the game? How about a team that scores two TDs and their opponent kicks four FGs...is it fair the team scoring a TD twice wins by just two vs the team that couldn't punch it in four times (game tied after 4Q if both XPs are missed)?

Should the extra-point be of less value? If so, you would want to increase the value of the TD to prevent (half-point) fractions; or perhaps, just an example, make the XP worth two points while upping the TD from six to fourteen (thus upping the ratio from 1/6 to 1/7)! Such a concept, of course, would demand to then readjust the value of the FG/safety/TPC. Or would the XP remain at just 'one' but non-fraction adjustments instead being made for the relation between TDs and FGs, TDs/safeties, FGs/TPCs, etc?

Again, I'd rather it simply stay as is just because of the well-over-a-century-old tradition of it all. But if, say, the game of football was still in its conception, and YOU were the one deciding how the scoring would go just before it'd be 'written-in-STONE', with a very opened-mind (yes, easier said than done) how would you tweak things if even bother tweaking them at all?

Me? I'd more-than-likely keep it all the same, but not before briefly entertaining maybe (just maybe) slightly reducing the value of the FG compared to the TD; and if I'd do just that, then have to look at all the other ways of scoring and analyze what possible adjustments to make from there (at all times, upping or lowering whole numbers to avoid fractions). In either event, I do think the 1/6 XP/TD ratio is just right. Should the safety be worth more (less) in accordance to the TD? How about the two-point-conversion (should it be three-pts)? Yeah, thinking of it all is like opening up a can of worms. It'd be awfully hard to no longer see the TD at SIX points!! Yeah, I think I'd pass and simply 'carve' into the 'stone' - '6', '3', '1', '2', '2' respectively!


One thing that I know has been considered by some (I believe coaches, competition committee, etc) is the notion that a FG being made at a certain longer distance should maybe be four pts instead of three. I'm at 101% disagreement with that. This isn't fantasy-football. In real football, a FG should be the same value no matter where it's kicked. A very long FG...yes, the kicker makes quite a long kick but how about the offense not driving deep enough in the first place? A short FG...yes, not as big an accomplishment for the kicker, but man did the offense drive deep enough to help assure the FG be made! It's ying-and-yang to me, evens itself out no matter where the kick was made.

Well, if I was involved in one of these new leagues I would make touchdowns worth 7 points, extra/action plays after touchdowns would be worth 1 point whether it was a successful place kick, run or pass, and field goals would be worth 3 points. I want a premium put on a touchdown but I would say, "Well, if you can't get in the end zone at least you have a chance for three points."

Weirdly, in the very early days of football, the conversion was actually worth more than the touchdown.

Todd Pence wrote:Weirdly, in the very early days of football, the conversion was actually worth more than the touchdown.

That comes from American football's origins in Rugby, where a touchdown didn't score any points at that time. It simply gave the team the right to a free goal kick. That's why the extra point kick is called a "conversion"; it converted the touchdown into points.

JWL wrote:Well, if I was involved in one of these new leagues I would make touchdowns worth 7 points, extra/action plays after touchdowns would be worth 1 point whether it was a successful place kick, run or pass, and field goals would be worth 3 points. I want a premium put on a touchdown but I would say, "Well, if you can't get in the end zone at least you have a chance for three points."

The WFL had this:

"Touchdowns will be worth seven points and the extra point kick has been eliminated. Instead there will be an "action point" attempt from the 2 1/2 - yard line for one additional point by running or passing."

A look at FG percentage from 1920 (I know the stats are incomplete, but you can still get a rough idea of what FG percentage was from 1920 to 1932) to today will indicate that compared to the early days, the FG is practically automatic today, especially from 40 yards out or less. I think the FG should / could be reduced to 2 points. I know it will never happen, but I'd be in favor of such a change.

MarbleEye wrote:A look at FG percentage from 1920 (I know the stats are incomplete, but you can still get a rough idea of what FG percentage was from 1920 to 1932) to today will indicate that compared to the early days, the FG is practically automatic today, especially from 40 yards out or less. I think the FG should / could be reduced to 2 points. I know it will never happen, but I'd be in favor of such a change.

I've never seen any stats on field goal percentages pre-1933, and would be very curious how the FG percentages changed between 1920 and 1932. The team and individual field goal attempt numbers that are listed in the encyclopedias for 1933-1937 are sketchy at best and are often left blank. I've been looking for missed field goals from 1933 to 37 over the years, and just from what I've found in newspaper accounts, many of the numbers for attempts are nowhere near what the encyclopedia or other sources say. In those years, the Packers are probably the only team that we'll ever have fairly accurate field goal attempt numbers for because the Green Bay newspaper published thorough play-by-play accounts of Packers games. Starting in 1938 the league started keeping pretty good track of team and individual field goal attempt numbers.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

MarbleEye wrote:A look at FG percentage from 1920 (I know the stats are incomplete, but you can still get a rough idea of what FG percentage was from 1920 to 1932) to today will indicate that compared to the early days, the FG is practically automatic today, especially from 40 yards out or less. I think the FG should / could be reduced to 2 points. I know it will never happen, but I'd be in favor of such a change.

I've never seen any stats on field goal percentages pre-1933, and would be very curious how the FG percentages changed between 1920 and 1932. The team and individual field goal attempt numbers that are listed in the encyclopedias for 1933-1937 are sketchy at best and are often left blank. I've been looking for missed field goals from 1933 to 37 over the years, and just from what I've found in newspaper accounts, many of the numbers for attempts are nowhere near what the encyclopedia or other sources say. In those years, the Packers are probably the only team that we'll ever have fairly accurate field goal attempt numbers for because the Green Bay newspaper published thorough play-by-play accounts of Packers games. Starting in 1938 the league started keeping pretty good track of team and individual field goal attempt numbers.

My main point was that FG percentage has probably mostly risen year by year, or decade by decade if you prefer. I'm sure it's not a straight line progression year to year, but over time, FG percentage has risen to levels that would have probably been considered superhuman had they been attained in the 1920's. When I was a kid if you could make half your attempts (mid to late 60's) you could probably keep an NFL or AFL job, at least for awhile. I don't believe a 50% kicker could keep his job for long at all today.

I know you have studied FG's and attempts, percentage, distance etc. so maybe you could comment on exactly how the rise has progressed, starting in 1933 or 1938 or whenever you feel comfortable with the data. I feel FG's from 40 on in are being missed very seldom these days and it's not a very exciting play. It would put more of a premium on TD's and teams maybe not being so quick to settle for the more or less automatic points, if the point value of the FG was dropped to two. That's the main thrust of what I am saying, it's too easy and too dull to score on a FG today. The point reward is too great for what has become a negligible risk.

I have always wondered why in Canada a touchback or even a missed field goal that goes outside the endzone is worth one point (known as a single or rouge).By the way, the extra point in the CFL is known as a convert and I read that in the 1950s a touchdown was worth only 5 points.

Teo wrote:I have always wondered why in Canada a touchback or even a missed field goal that goes outside the endzone is worth one point (known as a single or rouge).By the way, the extra point in the CFL is known as a convert and I read that in the 1950s a touchdown was worth only 5 points.

Canadians love their rouge, but it's a love-hate relationship. The fun thing about the rouge is that it becomes REALLY important when the game is tied and time is near to expiring. (The play clock outruns the game clock in the CFL, by the way, so that the game clock can expire before the final play clock expires.) It's really fun to watch teams drop-kicking the ball at one another in attempt to either force the ball outside the end zone (to score 1 point for the win) or to keep it out of the end zone and on the field of play (to force a tie). Here is one example of a CFL game ending in that situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5BFaykcxGg

The hateful thing about the rouge, however, is that you can win the game by missing a field goal. That happened this year.

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/cfl/ ... -1.5202885

Technically, you can win a game by PURPOSEFULLY missing a field goal, but the deep end zones and the deep defensive back are supposed to prevent that from happening.

Personally, I like the rouge, but I also like the safety when it is used INTENTIONALLY to preserve field position on 4th down. My guess is that's where the term "safety" came from. You never see an NFL team commit an intentional safety, but they do it in the CFL occasionally, and it makes perfect sense. I've often wondered why NFL teams don't use it more when they have a lead that they'd like to preserve.