Zuerlein no fan of preseason extra-point experiment/PD

[HometownBoy]

Seems like a move to just make a move, which is what happens when a bunch of stuffy, old white men in suits get bored together.

 

[Mamfm5]

I don't understand why % of time a play is executed successfully = not working.

If someone discovered that the same percentage of tackles were executed properly as PATs, would you be in favor of not having players tackle each other anymore?

If you could show that 99.6% of all tackles lead wide were made successfully, I would argue that you would be watching a FAR less exciting sport. The NFL is in the entertainment industry, and the average viewer is watching for "exciting" plays. This may not hold true for the die hard fan, but the die hard fans comprise the vast minority of viewership. In the entertainment industry, I would argue that the goal is to increase notoriety and viewership and thus increase revenue. If this is in fact the goal, then wasting TV time or a play on something that is virtually automatic and provides little to no chance of being an "exciting" play = not working. Especially when there is the POTENTIAL for something that may draw in more interest from the casual fan. In no way am I saying that you are wrong, I am simply attempting to look at it from the view of the NFL, which is just a business competing against other business' for viewership and popularity.

I understand completely why one would not want to change the rule, but I also see no negative in at least seeing the potential in a meaningless exhibition game. It's not as if you can argue kickers need real game situations to work on there FG's from the 2.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

If you could show that 99.6% of all tackles lead wide were made successfully, I would argue that you would be watching a FAR less exciting sport. The NFL is in the entertainment industry, and the average viewer is watching for "exciting" plays. This may not hold true for the die hard fan, but the die hard fans comprise the vast minority of viewership. In the entertainment industry, I would argue that the goal is to increase notoriety and viewership and thus increase revenue. If this is in fact the goal, then wasting TV time or a play on something that is virtually automatic and provides little to no chance of being an "exciting" play = not working. Especially when there is the POTENTIAL for something that may draw in more interest from the casual fan. In no way am I saying that you are wrong, I am simply attempting to look at it from the view of the NFL, which is just a business competing against other business' for viewership and popularity.

I understand completely why one would not want to change the rule, but I also see no negative in at least seeing the potential in a meaningless exhibition game. It's not as if you can argue kickers need real game situations to work on there FG's from the 2.

I can't disagree with that.

Coming from a more theoretical perspective, I guess at what point do you lose entertainment value by having less routine moments? In other words doesn't the routine extra point, as opposed to one that's more difficult or two point conversions at less critical junctures of the game highten the excitement of a two point conversion late with more drama attached?

The NFL is already the most popular program on TV. There's not a whole lot more headroom. I'd worry that if you start losing some integral aspects of the game, the only place to go is down.

 

[Mamfm5]

I can't disagree with that.

Coming from a more theoretical perspective, I guess at what point do you lose entertainment value by having less routine moments? In other words doesn't the routine extra point, as opposed to one that's more difficult or two point conversions at less critical junctures of the game highten the excitement of a two point conversion late with more drama attached?

The NFL is already the most popular program on TV. There's not a whole lot more headroom. I'd worry that if you start losing some integral aspects of the game, the only place to go is down.

I agree with this, and its hard to say as this is really an unprecedented change for the NFL. The closest thing I can think of would be the MLB expanding the strike zone in 1961, which lasted all of 8 years until they shrank the strike zone back to roughly what it was before.

I am interested to see how it plays out in the pre-season. As you said, the NFL is the the most popular program on TV, and they didn't get there by not putting due diligence into their business decisions. I would hope that if it does alter the integrity of the game, and in turn cheapen the excitement of things like the 2 pt. conversion, the NFL will be smart enough to avoid such a change.

 

[Ken]

I can't remember the last time I've seen it (probably because it hardly ever works or makes sense). But this would eliminate the fake PAT kick attempt.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

I can't remember the last time I've seen it (probably because it hardly ever works or makes sense). But this would eliminate the fake PAT kick attempt.

Or would it?

 

[SierraRam]

They need to set up several rings in various place throughout the end zone. Get the ball through the bronze, you get 1 point. Silver = 2 points. Gold = 45 points, but Tim Tebow gets subbed in as your teams QB for the rest of the game, so maybe think that one through..

exactly. Skee ball style:

 

[Rambition]

I think the center to quarterback exchange is too automatic. Every play should have to be run from the shotgun to make it more exciting. Also, and team that run a dive between the tackles should be penalized 15 yards, and instead of a coin toss they should go back to the XFL way of deciding first possession.

I mean, where does it end guys? Why mess with something that is already working?

because--perhaps counterintuitively--it can be said that it is not working. when you have a play in which one team--the defensive unit, in this case--is facing a handicap of such immense proportions that probability of their having success in that play is microscopically low, what is the point? it's a borderline charade. you have a much better chance of someone being injured on these plays than you do in changing the near-certain outcome. that reality alone almost cries out for a change. even when an extra point play does not succeed, it's much more likely to result from something like a bad snap than from actual competition. hell, you might as well just award the point and be done with it. let us get another beer and they can run some more commercials while we do it. and just because something has always--or for a very long time--been done a certain way, that does not in itself mean it is right or best, and that something else may not be better.

i don't feel your analogies are really apt. no one considering this change is talking about a slippery slope that would outlaw such fundamentals as the traditional center-to-QB handoff. i think that it is telling that it's not easy to come up with an especially apt analogy in football...what that says to me is that, even if they don't necessarily process it in these terms, people prefer to watch plays in which one team isn't by rule burdened with a handicap that is practically insurmountable. even the two-point conversion--which in my mind is about the nearest thing to the extra-point play--features results that are much more in doubt, and which can and do produce different results from one to the next, and in which the efforts of both the offensive and defensive players routinely matter greatly in the outcome.

i think it's possible to make relatively small changes in the game that would result in a better product while avoiding fundamentally altering the very fabric of the sport. i think this is one of them.

 

[Rambition]

Seems like a move to just make a move, which is what happens when a bunch of stuffy, old white men in suits get bored together.

i always thought that stuffy old white guys were the very antithesis of change.

 

[Rambition]

If you could show that 99.6% of all tackles lead wide were made successfully, I would argue that you would be watching a FAR less exciting sport. The NFL is in the entertainment industry, and the average viewer is watching for "exciting" plays. This may not hold true for the die hard fan, but the die hard fans comprise the vast minority of viewership. In the entertainment industry, I would argue that the goal is to increase notoriety and viewership and thus increase revenue. If this is in fact the goal, then wasting TV time or a play on something that is virtually automatic and provides little to no chance of being an "exciting" play = not working. Especially when there is the POTENTIAL for something that may draw in more interest from the casual fan. In no way am I saying that you are wrong, I am simply attempting to look at it from the view of the NFL, which is just a business competing against other business' for viewership and popularity.

I understand completely why one would not want to change the rule, but I also see no negative in at least seeing the potential in a meaningless exhibition game. It's not as if you can argue kickers need real game situations to work on there FG's from the 2.

thank you, well-said.

 

[cracengl]

exactly. Skee ball style:

That's what I'm talking bout!

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

because--perhaps counterintuitively--it can be said that it is not working. when you have a play in which one team--the defensive unit, in this case--is facing a handicap of such immense proportions that probability of their having success in that play is microscopically low, what is the point?

Because if the driving force behind this change, aside from it just being a hot button topic right now, is the percentage of how often the play is executed properly than anything that can be executed properly a vast majority of the time becomes in play for the next hot button issue and becomes "a necessary element of change to make the game more exciting."

You may not feel that things like well executed blocking and tackling, center to quarterback exchanges, third and short conversions, etc are the talking point now, so they never will be. But I think if you start taking away fundamental aspects of the game because they're boring, you cheapen the excitement when it does matter.

One of the greatest moments in college football history was when Tom Osborne went for two in the 1984 Orange Bowl. Who cares about that moment if Nebraska went for two the entire game because the extra point was too far back anyway? It's just another mundane moment when a coach went for two again because it made statistical sense.