Irony of Patriots losing on a PAT? Bill Belichick proposed the rule change

I didn't understand that rule change to begin with. They'd be better off counting TD's without PAT's as 7 and offering a metaphoric 3-point chance for a non 2-point conversion tries from 35 and beyond.

(01-25-2016 09:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I didn't understand that rule change to begin with. They'd be better off counting TD's without PAT's as 7

Why would that be better? What happened in that game is precisely what they were looking for. To make the extra point not so automatic, and force more two point conversion attempts.

The extra point as it was has been a part of the game for so long that changing it is like changing a significant part of the Bible. Weren't you the one saying in the March Madness thread on the other board how you don't mess with the golden goose? So why mess with this?

If they were gonna make a change, they could have added a 3-point element like the NBA, or in other words let people attempt a legit field goal length FG for more points. There's a number of things they could have done but moving the extra point back so far seemed weird for certain.

The rule change is a half measure. There was a lot of support for finding a way to encourage more 2-point conversion tries, but this was the only change that had enough support to pass. Moving the 1-point try back even farther had little support, and reducing the distance between the goal posts didn't have much either.

You mentioned a 3-point element... wouldn't it be interesting if they just made "2-point conversions" worth 3 points, and gave teams the choice between kicking for 1 or trying to get into the end zone for 3. That would definitely push coaches to kick the PAT less often.

Yes it would.

But as I said, they could have left the traditional rules alone and just introduced a 3-point element. I guarantee you it would have seen a lot of use, particularly for teams that kick a lot of field goals and need to regain some points fast. And suddenly, a 17-point lead is not insurmountable.

In the final minutes that is.

(01-28-2016 06:31 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  The extra point as it was has been a part of the game for so long that changing it is like changing a significant part of the Bible. Weren't you the one saying in the March Madness thread on the other board how you don't mess with the golden goose? So why mess with this?

So you are saying the extra point on the two yard line is something that draws people to watch the game? Unless you are saying that, this comparison doesn't work.

However what the NFL was trying to do, was remove a play that was essentially automatic, and encourage more two point conversions, which they think makes for a better and more exciting game, or speed the game up by removing the XP (right or wrong, that was the primary reason behind it).

My point was, the result we saw, was what they wanted. We can agree or disagree if it is better or worse, but that was precisely what they wanted. So why would they change it?

Here's a Stat Nerd article about the missed extra point from 538:

There Were 35 Plays More Costly To The Patriots Than Stephen Gostkowski’s Missed Extra Point

(01-29-2016 12:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  So you are saying the extra point on the two yard line is something that draws people to watch the game? Unless you are saying that, this comparison doesn't work.

However what the NFL was trying to do, was remove a play that was essentially automatic, and encourage more two point conversions, which they think makes for a better and more exciting game, or speed the game up by removing the XP (right or wrong, that was the primary reason behind it).

My point was, the result we saw, was what they wanted. We can agree or disagree if it is better or worse, but that was precisely what they wanted. So why would they change it?

What I'm saying is people are drawn to the game because of, among many reasons, familiarity just like people going through a yearly regimen of filling out the bracket. If you suddenly make radical changes like this, then the NFL will not resemble the game people grew up with. It will resemble something new and perhaps with enough changes like a different sport like how arena and Canadian football vary from American.

You're more set to throw off coaches strategies and annoy fans (like me, I'm not a fan of the new rule) by moving the XP back. If they wanted to stir the pot, they could have added the 3-point XP as I suggested, which still could have kept the traditional play as an option.

Remember Coke 2? There's a reason it went right back to classic Coca Cola and that's because the consumers rebelled. I think most NFL fans are locked in but they could lose a few old timers.

(01-29-2016 03:44 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 12:18 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  So you are saying the extra point on the two yard line is something that draws people to watch the game? Unless you are saying that, this comparison doesn't work.

However what the NFL was trying to do, was remove a play that was essentially automatic, and encourage more two point conversions, which they think makes for a better and more exciting game, or speed the game up by removing the XP (right or wrong, that was the primary reason behind it).

My point was, the result we saw, was what they wanted. We can agree or disagree if it is better or worse, but that was precisely what they wanted. So why would they change it?

What I'm saying is people are drawn to the game because of, among many reasons, familiarity just like people going through a yearly regimen of filling out the bracket. If you suddenly make radical changes like this, then the NFL will not resemble the game people grew up with. It will resemble something new and perhaps with enough changes like a different sport like how arena and Canadian football vary from American.

You're more set to throw off coaches strategies and annoy fans (like me, I'm not a fan of the new rule) by moving the XP back. If they wanted to stir the pot, they could have added the 3-point XP as I suggested, which still could have kept the traditional play as an option.

Remember Coke 2? There's a reason it went right back to classic Coca Cola and that's because the consumers rebelled. I think most NFL fans are locked in but they could lose a few old timers.

The change the NFL actually made was minor.

Your argument is an argument against making more substantial changes, like abolishing PATs altogether and making every TD worth 7 points, or like abolishing PAT kicks and making every conversion attempt a play from scrimmage for 2 points.

I agree it's minor but making changes for the sake of change seems weird and throws things off. Changing rules to prevent concussions in one thing, like targeting. It's another to mess with something that fans have been familiar with for decades and is a foundation in the game of football at all levels.

Like I said, I haven't lost any sleep over it but I don't like it either.