Getting rid of the extra point. Good or bad?

[Broncosballer32]

Normally I would not mind all that much. Really is not a big deal when you think about it.

Then again there is that creepy feeling that this commissioner will continue to take things away to where the game will totally change. Hell, it already has changed pretty dramatically.

I made this point before. The most popular game in the world continues to be soccer. Yeah, we think it sucks, and it pretty much does suck. That is not the point. In the world, the game is still the most popular. Yet, no one has tried to change the rules in that sport. It remains pretty much the same and has been the same for centuries.

Now, it may be me, but even if the NFL was the EXACT SAME as it was in the 70s, I would still be addicted to the NFL. I am pretty sure we would not all be abandoning the NFL in viewers and opting for soccer instead or basketball. Would you? They use the massive ratings as JUSTIFICATION that all of the rule changes have been good. People like Colon Cowturd who consistently uses fallacies to justify his positions. (Like when he blamed Asante Samuel for dropping an INT in the SB or else "Brady would have won it.")

^^^^^^

Then when someone like me points out that their offense scoring only 14 points may also have had something to do with it.....oh nevermind.

The problem is when they start changing rules or the nature of the game in these "small ways," the cumulative effect makes the game something it never was. Having said that, I wish they would just leave well enough alone. Let the game be what it has always been. I sound like an old fogy saying that, but I say just leave the game alone.

 

[MrDoc420]

I personally don't see the point. It might be a very small part of the game, but it's part of the game none the less. Rarely will you see any significant injuries on extra points, and SOMETIMES they can determine the outcome of a game.

I just don't see any real benefit of taking it away.

 

[iknowftbll]

Rodger Goodell's vision for the league is horrific. May he slip on a banana peel on the sidewalk, stumble into the street, get his foot and ankle caught in a drain grate, and stumble to the ground where he will be struck by a bicycle message delivery boy and receive a concussion that sidelines him for two weeks during which point he has an epiphany that he is an idiot and needs to resign.

 

[BroncoInCALI]

I don't see the point either. Especially when Goodell has made "It's all about player safety" his calling card.

Really? If it is all about player safety, why are you talking about exposing offensive and defensive players to potentially 5-10 more plays per game by eliminating the extra point?

I am of the opinion that if it is not broke, don't fix it.

 

[JDM]

I don't see the point either. Especially when Goodell has made "It's all about player safety" his calling card.

Really? If it is all about player safety, why are you talking about exposing offensive and defensive players to potentially 5-10 more plays per game by eliminating the extra point?

I am of the opinion that if it is not broke, don't fix it.

 

[grim rpr]

Is it the idea that every touchdown would the have to go for 2 points after? If that is the case then in my opinion it would be a pretty dramatic advantage to the home team. Do u see my point? I dont know the stats but would think home field makes it easier to get in for the 2 points due to crowd noise etc...

 

[cdumler7]

The rule right now would be you can take the automatic 7 points or decide to essentially go for the 2 point conversion like you can today. You won't have to actually run a 2-point conversion if you don't want to and just take the 7.


Now to me the extra point is not that big of a deal. Not seeing the point of changing something that has very little effect on the game. I guess they can look at the Gronk injury as justification since he did break his arm on an extra point and hasn't been the same since.


To me if the NFL wants to work on changing some things focus their money and energy towards designing helmets and padding that better protects the players. The better the equipment the less chance for injury especially concussions. Why not just make all players wear the helmets geared towards protecting the head instead of waiting till after they have 2 concussions? That to me is where the NFL should focus their efforts instead of changing the rules. To me changing the rules like they have they have just tried to eliminate the head injuries by allowing for more leg injuries. How is that really helping the game other than protecting players from future head injuries?

 

[Morpheus]

The way I read it, you can take 7 and just kick off.

Or you can go for 2 and get 8 total if you convert, but if you fail, you only get 6.

I see the practicality of it. Eliminating the 1 point PAT may help prevent some injuries.

From a fans viewpoint, it seems you are tinkering with the integrity and history of the game.

I would not have a problem with just the PAT, but the kick off and anything else?

No way.

I think Goodell is just trying to find ways to leave his mark on the game.

 

[BroncoInCALI]

I'm guessing the Dave Chappelle face is your way of saying you don't understand?

Here, I will spell it out for you: In most of the new scenarios, they are talking about teams either having to go for two or going for 1 with the possibility of having a point deducted if not successful.

So, in an average game there are between 5 and 10 TDs. Therefore, if teams go for two or whatever the league comes up with they will be doing so with their offense or trying to stop with their Defense.

It makes no sense to say you are all about safety and then expose players to more plays, let alone the chatter about adding 2 games.

Clear enough for you, wise guy?

 

[FFSparky]

I don't see the point either. Especially when Goodell has made "It's all about player safety" his calling card.

Really? If it is all about player safety, why are you talking about exposing offensive and defensive players to potentially 5-10 more plays per game by eliminating the extra point?

I am of the opinion that if it is not broke, don't fix it.

Cali, for "the 5 to 10 more plays, I presume you referring to those going for the 2 extra points?"

Would teams really go for 2 that many times during a game? I would think it would only be in the normal situation their score chart says 2 is needed so 5 would be high in my mind.

Regardless, I'm with you if it is not broke, don't fix it.

 

[Malibu]

The way I read it, you can take 7 and just kick off.

Or you can go for 2 and get 8 total if you convert, but if you fail, you only get 6.

I see the practicality of it. Eliminating the 1 point PAT may help prevent some injuries.

From a fans viewpoint, it seems you are tinkering with the integrity and history of the game.

I would not have a problem with just the PAT, but the kick off and anything else?

No way.

I think Goodell is just trying to find ways to leave his mark on the game.

Yeah it may help prevent some injuries but this is coming from Goodell who wants to add games to the season. How does that prevent injuries? Leave the game alone Roger its fine the way it is.

 

[BroncoInCALI]

Cali, for "the 5 to 10 more plays, I presume you referring to those going for the 2 extra points?"

Would teams really go for 2 that many times during a game? I would think it would only be in the normal situation their score chart says 2 is needed so 5 would be high in my mind.

Regardless, I'm with you if it is not broke, don't fix it.

Good point Sparky.....

 

[iknowftbll]

Good point Sparky.....

Unless we're talking about Goodell's neck after he screws up the game we all love so much.

KIDDING! KIDDING!

(Really, I am kidding. I just hate this man's vision for the NFL. Hate it with a passion. A topic perhaps we can discuss in the off season.)