SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all PFR content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.
Also, our existing PFR blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.
Pro-Football-Reference.com ยป Sports Reference
For more from Chase and Jason, check out their work at Football Perspective and The Big Lead.
ShareThisExtra point: what’s the point?
It's Friday, so I'm going to open up the Rant category.
Just for fun some time, try the following exercise:
- Write a paragraph describing why you like the sport of football and/or why you like watching it.
- Find someone who has never seen a football game before. If you don't live abroad or work on a college campus, this could be tough, so you can just turn this into a thought experiment if necessary.
- Show that person video footage of an extra point being kicked and ask him to write a paragraph describing it.
I dare you to try and convince me that those two paragraphs aren't exact opposites of each other.
Despite maintaining a site with a lot of moldy old football statistics, I'm not very educated on football history. But here is the situation as I understand it. Rugby is all about running with the ball, kicking the ball, stopping people from running with or kicking the ball, and stopping people from stopping people from running with or kicking the ball. American football evolved from rugby so, in its infancy, football was about those same things.
But then football evolved. It could have evolved into a sport where kicking was even more important than in rugby. It could have evolved into a sport where the people who run with the ball must also be able to boot it. Had it done so, the resulting sport might have been just as entertaining as what we now understand as football. But it didn't. It evolved into a sport about running, passing, tackling, and blocking.
When something evolves, that doesn't necessarily imply that it is getting better in any absolute sense. It just means that it's getting better suited to a particular niche. Rugby is about speed, strength, collisions, throwing, kicking, versatility, and continuous action. Football has evolved toward the first four of those and away from the last three.
To summarize: football players used to kick the ball. Now, the players that kick the ball are not football players. Yes, yes, I understand that by definition they are football players. They wear football uniforms and get paychecks from football teams. I get that. Kicking is football in the same sense that Anna Nicole Smith is a model.
Allow me to anticipate a few objections to this post and attempt to rebut them:
- But Doug, kickoffs and punts are some of the most exciting plays in football. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I claim that the kick itself plays no role at all in the excitement. It's merely a means of getting to the exciting part: the return.
- But Doug, a potential game winning field goal attempt in the last second is super duper exciting. I don't disagree that it is, but again, the kick itself is irrelevant. Any last second event that determines the outcome of the game will produce suspense, tension, and excitement. The coin flip at the beginning of overtime produces a lot of suspense, tension, and excitement. That doesn't mean that coin-flippers are football players.
- But Doug, this is just an example of specialization. You're not opposed to specialization are you? It is true that everyone's role --- not just the kicker's --- is becoming more specialized. Offensive linemen used to carry the ball occasionally. Running backs used to have to block, throw, and run inside and outside. Running ability used to be required for quarterbacks; now it's optional. How can I be opposed to Adam Vinatieri's specialized role while not being opposed to Ted Washington's or Jerome Bettis's or Peyton Manning's? Here's how: because Bettis' role, specialized as it is, is a part of why people like football. So are Manning's and Washington's. Vinatieri's is not. That was the point of the thought experiment that started off this post.
In my hot youth, I used to be a revolutionary. Now I'm older and have less energy, so I'm content with small steps in the right direction. With that in mind, I propose the elimination of the extra point. I see a few options.
- A touchdown is worth 7 points
- A touchdown is worth 6 points and is followed by a scrimmage play from the two yard line (or wherever) that might be worth one point or two points.
I can think of a few arguments for each choice, and I'm not quite sure which I like best. That's not really the point. The point is that less kicking equals more football. And I like football.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 21st, 2006 at 4:16 am and is filed under Rant. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I dunno, I kinda like the extra point. 99% of the time, I'll concede that it is a little boring, but it's the 1% of the time that makes it completely worth while to me. Consider:
*A couple years ago, the Saints miracle last second play--a series of laterals, jukes, and prayers--football at its finest. They score! The crowd erupts--until the kicker shanks the freebie, and they lose by one.
*Any blocked kick
*The team drama (i.e. Vanderjagt: the drunken 'idiot kicker,' the head games, the shunning after missing the big one, the comraderie after nailing the big one)
*Fake field goals
*Fake punts (Some of the BEST trickery would go away)
What I dont like about kickers is how they are coddled. I say keep them in the game, but I dont want to see a flag if they JUST BARELY get the ball off before they get hammered. They want to play football, let them play football. Anyway, that's my two cents.
While option 2 sounds more "interesting" than option 1, I'd strongly oppose it. All TDs should be worth seven points -- I have enough frustration watching the Jets. The last thing I need to see is them drive down 90 yards, get a TD, and then miss the point after play. If the touchdown is the ultimate goal, let them all be equal. In a strange way, I think the *worse* team will win more games if we go with option 2 (similar to how I think we shouldn't have overtime, since giving each team a tie surely is more reflective of how the game was played). It would be more exciting for fans all around for sure, but I don't think it's in the best interest of the game.
Fortunately this is all moot since we all know that kickers aren't going anywhere. I'll add this though: whenever a team misses an extra point and goes on to lose by a point, it does feel like a "cheap" loss in a way.
There's no way the NFL would ever eliminate the PAT-kick and rely on scrimmage plays for the conversion. They are a 50% proposition, so they scores of games would be chaos (and coaches would be second guessed too much).
But, I think it would be awesome. The fact that the 1-point conversion is just assumed when your team is down by 7 or 14 points and everybody just says "all they have to do is score the touchdown to tie." That points to me that it's lame. I assume there was a time when the PAT was much more of a challenge.
I'd like to see the PAT kick eliminated.
I'd like to see field goals stay, but change the value. Make them increase in value by their distance. Under 20 yards = 1 point. 20-29 yards = 2 points. 30-39 yards = 3 points. 40-49 yards = 4 points. 50+ yards = 5 points.
I'd like to see kickoffs eliminated. Just give the team the ball on the 20. Kickoffs and kick returns are mostly boring. I don't need them. I'm not sure how many players are actually injured on kickoffs, but it sure seems like a dangerous play. Plus, each team's best players aren't even on the field for the kickoff, so that tells you how important they are considered.
I might even like to see punts eliminated, or maybe modified in some way.
Richie: If we use your FG scoring system, we'll be making kickers more valuable -- and giving Doug a coronary. A team that drives down to the 1 and kicks a field goal would only get one point, while a team that stalled at the 33 would get 5 points if the kicker comes through. That's solely rewarding the skill of a kicker. (Although it would have the side effect of making teams become more aggressive near the goal line, which isn't an altogether bad thing.)
I love it, in fact let me take it a step further ... no punting, no FG, no XP! A TD is 6, you may try for 2 only - if it's 4th down, then all or nothing. All balls football, sounds good to me - I bet you'd get more 2nd & 3rd efforts for that 1st down with this style of game. Obviously this will never happen, I mean it took the NFL a lifetime before adding the 2pt conversion & I believe it stands as the only change to the scoring system since the 20's or 30's(?) ... but it can't hurt to dream. Kicking is definitely a tremendous skill especially from 45 yards out, but waiting for that 1% is like, to me, watching the freeway, waiting for an accident.
Here's a thought (and it might save doug the coronary). We'll use Richie's scoring system for kickers, but if they miss, the same amount is actually SUBTRACTED from the score. That'll make coaches think twice about those 50-yarders.
I think it would be a huge mistake to eliminate special teams...or to not call them some of the best players on the team. A few months ago, Maxim magazine ran an article on 'wedge-busters.' Special teams players play with more heart and soul that most players can fathom.
Not to mention, this is how some guys make their contributions. If you're 3rd string, it might be your only shot to ever play. No wonder they play with so much intensity...I cant fathom how you could find it boring.
Wow, I disagree with virtually everything Richie said. (Except for forcing to teams to run plays for the extra point. I'd be fine with that.)
Rewarding teams for longer field goals is a horrible idea. Philosophically, football is a game of field position, it's about gaining and defending territory. Teams should be penalized for failing to get near the goal line, not rewarded. And practically, it's even worse. If a team gets 4th-and-goal, down by 4, it'll be five or six false starts in a row.
I love kickoffs. I love punt returns. I love punt returns. I'll concede that a lot of punts are not terribly viscerally exciting, but I can't imagine football without punting.
And the idea of taking points off the scoreboard for missing field goals is, well, not a good one. Frankly, the idea of taking points off the scoreboard for anything is just annoying.
Sure, a good punt or kick return is exciting. But they are only slightly more frequent than a missed PAT kick.
Maybe my field goal length bonus wasn't well thought out, but I'm still not convinced it's a horrible idea. One idea would be that the maximum value of the kick is equal to the closest a team got to the end zone on that drive. (To prevent the intentional penalties to increase the value.)
This doesn't go against Doug's point (he specifically mentioned it in point #2), but I do think FGs are pretty cool. I can see how they're not really like the rest of the game, but that doesn't make it uninteresting (basketball isn't like football, but that doesn't make it uninteresting). Kickers have as much skill as the regular players do, and some of the kicks they make are pretty phenomenal. I also think FGs hold a pretty high spot in the history of the game: we've had two SBs decided by field goals, Vinatieri's FG in the Tuck Rule game, Bahr's FG to end the 49ers' threepeat run, and of course, Norwood's miss. Now whether or not these kicks *should* be affecting the outcomes of these games (you might want to argue that say, the '90 Bills or '90 49ers were better than the '90 Giants if you remove FG kickers), is another story. As for me, one of the enduring imagines in Jets history will be John Hall kicking the 53 yarder to beat the Raiders and send the Jets to the playoffs. (Of course, Doug Brien's images are there too). Having kickers may not have been the best idea when the NFL started, but I think it's too much a part of NFL lore to remove them without causing more harm than good IMO.
You know, if teams were forced to run or pass for PATs instead of kicking, you'd probably see fewer tie scores and fewer overtime games. There's another hidden benefit I hadn't thought of until right now.
I'm a Rugby fan, happening on this conversation. Consider this idea.
In Rugby, a try (touchdown) is worth 5 points, and the conversion (extra points) is 2. However, the conversion kick is taken from a line where the player grounds the ball -- no grounding, no try. So, when you get the chance, you ground under the posts. If you ground by the sideline (touchline), you kick at an angle. The kicker has a free shot -- the opposing players have to be standing on their goal line, and can't move to block the kick until the kicker moves towards the ball.
So -- Possible gridiron version of this: Point after is taken by the kicker, using a tee, from a spot anywhere along the line where the touchdown scorer crossed the plane of the end zone. If he crosses at the corner, the kicker takes the kick from anywhere along that sideline.
How about that?
As for your remark: Rugby is about speed, strength, collisions, throwing, kicking, versatility, and continuous action -- I would put it this way: Gridiron is Newtonian physics. Rugby is quantum physics.