So the NCAA is discussing changes to the extra point. My suggestion: make it a requirement that the ball be snapped from either hash. The angle alone should reduce the percentage of successful extra point. What say you?
They're discussing spotting the ball at the 25, but it's only for the preseason...I've heard the NFL is considering changing the extra point rule, but not the colleges.
While I've never really gotten the concept of why we have an extra point, it is too ingrained into the game to change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
That's just the thing. Some folks feel that when points are as automatic and as little of a challenge as the PAT is, it is pointless, and therefore is broke. I don't have the 2013 stats on it, but in 2012, among 5,425 FBS attempts, 5,234 (96.5%) were made. That's one miss every 28.4 attempts. One miss every 4.3 games. That's pretty pointless. Why not just make a TD worth 7 and be done with it?I've heard the NFL is considering changing the extra point rule, but not the colleges.
While I've never really gotten the concept of why we have an extra point, it is too ingrained into the game to change it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I thought there were rumblings of getting rid of it altogether?They're discussing spotting the ball at the 25, but it's only for the preseason...
I'd be willing to bet Coach Saban would not approve of that...Drop the kick and only have a 2 point try in regulation and OT.
They wait until the third so each team can have the ball last in overtime. If they were going to go with your suggestion they have to ban the kick altogether in overtime.The only change I'd like to see to the PAT is a requirement that you go for two in the SECOND overtime rather than the third.
This subject is nothing but a big joke and like every body else said if it's not broke don't fix it. What part of that does the NCAA not understand!!!!!!!!!So the NCAA is discussing changes to the extra point. My suggestion: make it a requirement that the ball be snapped from either hash. The angle alone should reduce the percentage of successful extra point. What say you?
I think this would interfere with the goal of fewer injuries... it seems more likely than an injury could occur in a rushing attempt than a kicking attempt.If we want to reduce the number of plays in a game to reduce injuries, eliminating the extra point would help. So I would vote for the elimination of the extra point (make a TD worth 7), but allow a team to try for an additional point by running what is currently a 2 point conversion play. If they fail to convert, they lose 1 point (making the TD only worth 6 points). If they convert, the TD + conversion would be worth 8 points.
From what I've read this is the model that the NFL is currently considering. The extra point is automatic, but if you attempt 2 and fail, you go back to six.If we want to reduce the number of plays in a game to reduce injuries, eliminating the extra point would help. So I would vote for the elimination of the extra point (make a TD worth 7), but allow a team to try for an additional point by running what is currently a 2 point conversion play. If they fail to convert, they lose 1 point (making the TD only worth 6 points). If they convert, the TD + conversion would be worth 8 points.
Not sure what you mean. There would be no more rushing plays under this scenario than we see currently, while there would be hundreds of fewer kicking plays every season.I think this would interfere with the goal of fewer injuries... it seems more likely than an injury could occur in a rushing attempt than a kicking attempt.
I think they should just leave it alone...