Bonus point

[Rich]

that was what was said when the 2pt was added, heck that was the same argument against introducing theforward pass

Forward passes and two point conversions are actually exciting. Another 1 point kick is not.

[Brian Fein]

hell, why not just let them keep kicking from 5 yards further for extra points until they miss!  Get the 2-point conversion, then an extra point from the 30, 35, 40, 45, and so on until they miss.

[MikeO]

that was what was said when the 2pt was added, heck that was the same argument against introducing theforward pass

The 2pt rule has been in the college game since 1958, the NFL was just late to the party of doing it. And this "bonus point" doesn't compare to the forward pass on any level.

It's just a silly gimmick to cheapen the sport

[dolphins4life]

The Bonus point would good for an arena football like league, not for a professional league like the NFL.

When it comes the NFL, I think if something sounds to radical, it's probably not a good idea, though that doesn't mean we should not make changes.

[dolphins4life]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12557583/extra-point-changes-nfl-likely-2015

More updates.  I don't like the idea.  Let it stay as it is now. 

Edit:  Any changes that make kicking more difficult, for example, by moving back the extra point, will hurt the Dolphins and help the Patriots

[fyo]

Since the 50s, XPs have been made more than 95% of the time, so what is it we're aiming for? Extra points have been virtually automatic for longer than most of us have been alive.

I'm not completely convinced that there's a problem and even if one accepts the argument that there is, that there is a simple solution.

Suppose we accept: PATs are "boring" and SOMETHING must be done to make them more "exciting".

Does moving the scrimmage line (more complicated than it seems) to increase kick distance, and thereby accuracy, really add much in the way of excitement? How low would the accuracy need to go before it's exciting enough?

Kicking accuracy has been steadily improving for over a hundred years and there's absolutely no indication that it's slowing down. Kicks at a given distance obviously cannot keep improving, but add some distance and the improvement is very constant (linear).

Kicks of 50-60 yards, for example, have increased in accuracy with right around one percentage point since the hash marks were moved in the mid-70s. That's 40 years of improvement, from below 25% to over 65%, with no tailing off yet.

Shorter kicks have seen accuracy increases start to diminish, but you really need to get closer than 35 yards to see that 1% a year improvement drop off significantly (and those kicks are made with better than 90% accuracy today).

So how far back do you move the scrimmage line? What percentage are you aiming for? 35 yard kicks, which is the distance I've heard mentioned most often as a new XP candidate, are already at 90% accuracy and on target for reaching 95% within a decade, probably even faster if kickers start kicking from that distance a lot more (which they would if the scrimmage line were moved). Sure, you'd still get the odd miss every now and then, but would it really add much excitement?
t
Although it will never happen, I'd rather increase the points of going for it from 2 to 3.

And if we're saying that kicks with high accuracy are boring, wouldn't the logical conclusion of that argument be that action should be taken to make ALL kicks more interesting? I.e. by moving the goal posts closer together.

Good article on kicker accuracy: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/kickers-are-forever/

[MikeO]

The bigger rule change that went through is the Patriots and that "eligible" receiver BS they did vs the Ravens in the playoffs. The Pats found a technicality and broke the "spirit" of the rule. Now the NFL has changed it and the rule is what it is supposed to be. No more BS stunts by the Pats in that regard.

It is funny (and sad) that they will get away with deflategate but the Falcons and Browns are getting "severe" punishments for their little scandals.

[Phishfan]

I think the NFL used this rule as a way to look tough on the Pats. I can't stand them as a team but there was no "technicality" getting exploited. They followed the rules of the game completely. Last I checked, using creative formations has always been a part of the game. The NFL has now limited those formations a bit.

[MikeO]

I think the NFL used this rule as a way to look tough on the Pats. I can't stand them as a team but there was no "technicality" getting exploited. They followed the rules of the game completely. Last I checked, using creative formations has always been a part of the game. The NFL has now limited those formations a bit.

It so was a technicality getting exploited, which is why they changed the rule. Otherwise they would have left it the same and done nothing

[EDGECRUSHER]

Just make a TD 7 points with the option to go for 2 and if they miss it, it's just 6 points. I don't want close games to be decided heavily based on what happens after a TD. It cheapens the importance of the TD.

[MikeO]

since "off the wall ideas" are being thrown out there. How about get rid of "specialized kickers."

The only people who can kick FG's, extra points, and who can punt are players who must play a certain amount of snaps (make it a high number) at another position. That would make the game more interesting. That way you can't sneak a kicker on a roster as the 6th string WR  and never play him at WR and only have him kick or something. Teams would have to develop position players to kick

[dolphins4life]

Maybe bring somebody from the stands to kick the PAT