Is it time to narrow the goal posts?

[Mr. WEO]

Paranoid much? Its not a threat. Its an offer to give you the attention you need elsewhere so that I don't have to read through your resume both on the main board and PPP to find whatever point you may have made. In this instance, you could have summed up your position in two sentences.

 

I read WEO's posts, and WEO cites odds which do not consider the higher potential payoff of scoring a TD in the decision tree. Look at the historical FG % posted by NoSaint. Then understand what is driving those %'s (hint, its not rule changes). As for the consequences of lower % FG completion, we don't need to wonder what will happen all that much. We have decades of data. The record is already there.

 

Whether passing the ball has become too easy or not is an unrelated issue to whether kicking has become too easy. Have that discussion in another thread.

 

Well, since "kicking has become too easy" is an invented rpoblem, I think it is reasonable to ask, "hasn't passing also become too easy" in order to put your contention inperspective. It really doesn't need a separate thread (because it, too, isn't really a problem that needs fixing).

 

No, i did not present data on the odds of subsequently scoring a TD as some point if a 4th down conversion was successful. I don't know where that data exists. Regardless, the decision being made is what do we do on 4th down and in "FG range". Chosing amongst the 2 options depends only on the odds of success for each. The fact remains that from 20 or more yards out and with more than 4 yards to go, the likelihood of converting is less than 40%. You would have to alter the odds of converting a FG to below that to make any coach regularly chose to "go for it".. I don't know how you make the odds go from 80-90% FG success to less than 40% without some silly extreme reconfiguration of the goalposts. I don't know what fan would want to regularly see his HC going for it with a 60+% chance of turning the ball over on downs after a long drive. I'll take the points, thanks.

 

Also, by severely narrowing the posts, you will not be affecting all teams equally. You may be selecting for a small number of very accurate kickers that will give their team a competitive advantage over others. It may not be an "all kickers" effect, as you have claimed.

 

Given how drastically the game has changed over 50 years, it hardly matters what teams were doing back then on 4th down instead of attempting a FG (my guess is "punt").

[NoSaint]

 

 

Well, since "kicking has become too easy" is an invented rpoblem, I think it is reasonable to ask, "hasn't passing also become too easy" in order to put your contention inperspective. It really doesn't need a separate thread (because it, too, isn't really a problem that needs fixing).

 

No, i did not present data on the odds of subsequently scoring a TD as some point if a 4th down conversion was successful. I don't know where that data exists. Regardless, the decision being made is what do we do on 4th down and in "FG range". Chosing amongst the 2 options depends only on the odds of success for each. The fact remains that from 20 or more yards out and with more than 4 yards to go, the likelihood of converting is less than 40%. You would have to alter the odds of converting a FG to below that to make any coach regularly chose to "go for it".. I don't know how you make the odds go from 80-90% FG success to less than 40% without some silly extreme reconfiguration of the goalposts. I don't know what fan would want to regularly see his HC going for it with a 60+% chance of turning the ball over on downs after a long drive. I'll take the points, thanks.

 

Also, by severely narrowing the posts, you will not be affecting all teams equally. You may be selecting for a small number of very accurate kickers that will give their team a competitive advantage over others. It may not be an "all kickers" effect, as you have claimed.

 

Given how drastically the game has changed over 50 years, it hardly matters what teams were doing back then on 4th down instead of attempting a FG (my guess is "punt").

 

it would obviously effect all kickers differently, but it would effect all kickers. you likewise do not have to change it to below 40% to get the effect hes going for, which i dont believe is to make coaches go for it at a ridiculous rate, but to simply make it more likely.

 

i guess the real question i have, is what is the large con that you see with tweaking this other than not liking change? i havent heard a downside from you, as much as simply that you dont like it or dont think its a problem. do you think changing it would create problems?

[Jauronimo]

Well, since "kicking has become too easy" is an invented rpoblem, I think it is reasonable to ask, "hasn't passing also become too easy" in order to put your contention inperspective. It really doesn't need a separate thread (because it, too, isn't really a problem that needs fixing).

 

No, i did not present data on the odds of subsequently scoring a TD as some point if a 4th down conversion was successful. I don't know where that data exists. Regardless, the decision being made is what do we do on 4th down and in "FG range". Chosing amongst the 2 options depends only on the odds of success for each. The fact remains that from 20 or more yards out and with more than 4 yards to go, the likelihood of converting is less than 40%. You would have to alter the odds of converting a FG to below that to make any coach regularly chose to "go for it".. I don't know how you make the odds go from 80-90% FG success to less than 40% without some silly extreme reconfiguration of the goalposts. I don't know what fan would want to regularly see his HC going for it with a 60+% chance of turning the ball over on downs after a long drive. I'll take the points, thanks.

 

Also, by severely narrowing the posts, you will not be affecting all teams equally. You may be selecting for a small number of very accurate kickers that will give their team a competitive advantage over others. It may not be an "all kickers" effect, as you have claimed.

 

Given how drastically the game has changed over 50 years, it hardly matters what teams were doing back then on 4th down instead of attempting a FG (my guess is "punt").

If passing has become too easy, it is so by design as a result of recent rule changes. If kicking has become "too easy" as a result of increased athleticism and the evolution of kicker as a specialized position. Apples to oranges, which is why if you want to discuss whether passing is too easy you should do so in another thread. You need to consider what is driving these trends.

 

There is no glaring problem with the golden age of kicking, but in my opinion, you shouldn't be rewarded just by virtue of crossing midfield. From a philosophical standpoint, I think the FG is playing too large a role in the game.

 

Who cares if the proposed rule changes effect all teams equally? Rule changes never effect all teams equally. As it stands, do all teams have the same chances of kicking a 55 yarder?

 

At first you argued that incrementally reducing the likelihood of converting a field goal attempt would have no change on play calling. That may be true. So the only result would be a few more missed field goals. Is that a problem? Is making a field goal more suspenseful a problem?

[Mr. WEO]

it would obviously effect all kickers differently, but it would effect all kickers. you likewise do not have to change it to below 40% to get the effect hes going for, which i dont believe is to make coaches go for it at a ridiculous rate, but to simply make it more likely.

 

i guess the real question i have, is what is the large con that you see with tweaking this other than not liking change? i havent heard a downside from you, as much as simply that you dont like it or dont think its a problem. do you think changing it would create problems?

If passing has become too easy, it is so by design as a result of recent rule changes. If kicking has become "too easy" as a result of increased athleticism and the evolution of kicker as a specialized position. Apples to oranges, which is why if you want to discuss whether passing is too easy you should do so in another thread. You need to consider what is driving these trends.

 

There is no glaring problem with the golden age of kicking, but in my opinion, you shouldn't be rewarded just by virtue of crossing midfield. From a philosophical standpoint, I think the FG is playing too large a role in the game.

 

Who cares if the proposed rule changes effect all teams equally? Rule changes never effect all teams equally. As it stands, do all teams have the same chances of kicking a 55 yarder?

 

At first you argued that incrementally reducing the likelihood of converting a field goal attempt would have no change on play calling. That may be true. So the only result would be a few more missed field goals. Is that a problem? Is making a field goal more suspenseful a problem?

 

I already said that I would rather come away with points than be left with having to go for it on 4th and long as the higher (or higher low) percentage option and more than likely turning the ball over on downs.

 

Exactly when did FG's change the game for the worse? Why would watching teams turn the ball over on downs 60% of the time in the other team's half of the field be more interesting? Or missing 60% of FGs, for that matter. I don't see the upside.

 

You want more interesting?--ban punting after you cross the 50 yard line. That would make it more interesting for our current HC. And simpler too.

 

And granted there were rule changes for CBs, but you can't be arguing that the QBs themselves and the complexity of passing schemes haven't changed also.

[Jauronimo]

I already said that I would rather come away with points than be left with having to go for it on 4th and long as the higher (or higher low) percentage option and more than likely turning the ball over on downs.

 

Exactly when did FG's change the game for the worse? Why would watching teams turn the ball over on downs 60% of the time in the other team's half of the field be more interesting? Or missing 60% of FGs, for that matter. I don't see the upside.

 

You want more interesting?--ban punting after you cross the 50 yard line. That would make it more interesting for our current HC. And simpler too.

 

And granted there were rule changes for CBs, but you can't be arguing that the QBs themselves and the complexity of passing schemes haven't changed also.

What problem does that address? You would rather see the game fundamentally changed rather than see those 50 yarders get a little tougher? Are you Caleb Sturgis?

[SRQ_BillsFan]

I'd like to know your opinion on narrowing the goal posts by 2 feet.

 

I think they should raise them so I don't have to watch guys throw it over the crossbar and act like they dunked it.

 

 

[Malazan]

What problem does that address? You would rather see the game fundamentally changed rather than see those 50 yarders get a little tougher? Are you Caleb Sturgis?

 

Some just want to watch the forums burn

[The Wiz]

Make the goal post a 'Y' instead of an 'H'

[oman128]

I think the NFL should decree that all field goals kicked over 50 yards gets you 4 points, and less than 50 gets you 3 points

 

And that a team can move the ball backwards to be able to kick a 50 yard fg to get the extra point.

[Iraq Vet]

I agree with the 2 feet. It is just enough to shave a few kicks from 50 yards. As long we add 2 inches in height and width to hockey goals as well. Goalies are too good now.

[Iraq Vet]

I also like the idea of TD are 7 points, extra point is still one, Field goals are 4 points past the 50 yard line. Then 3 points under 50 yards. Two point conversion should be 3 points. The riskier the call the higher the point total potential.

 

I like hockey wins to be 3 points in regulation. 2 points for OT win, 1 point OT loss.

[ALLEN1QB]

How about keeping the left one the same but moving the right one in?

[Offside Number 76]

Yes, and this was covered on page 1 of this thread

 

So why the !@#$ wasn't it merged or, worse, given the death by "this topic is currently..." (Which I hate, because they never tell you which thread to go to to discuss it)?

[DC Tom]

Sure, narrow the goal posts or widen the hash marks.

 

But if you do, spot the ball at the line of scrimmage after a missed FG, rather than the spot of the kick. Otherwise, you're going to end up with a lot of short, boring Jauron punts.

[KD in CA]

Ah, the 'everything needs to be fixed' crowd is here! Yes, let's move those goal posts in until FG success rates drop to.....? Oh wait...no one has been kind enough to tell us what year we had a perfect % of FGs made! How will we know when we've achieved the ideal width for the goal posts? And I presume if the FG success rate drops below the ideal level, we'll move the post back out again, right?

 

Some of you guys should go into politics. There's always a need there for people who want to !@#$ around with things that are just fine.

 

 

I also like the idea of TD are 7 points, extra point is still one, Field goals are 4 points past the 50 yard line. Then 3 points under 50 yards. Two point conversion should be 3 points. The riskier the call the higher the point total potential.

 

I like hockey wins to be 3 points in regulation. 2 points for OT win, 1 point OT loss.

I think they should spin a wheel before the play to see how many points the FG would be worth.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

 

 

I think they should spin a wheel before the play to see how many points the FG would be worth.

 

Winner!!!!

 

 

[cage]

Why not just get rid of the PAT and make the current 2 pt conversion a one point play?

 

I do like that idea,... but there is some fun and strategy in going for 1pt or 2, so it adds an element to the game particularly in the 4th quarter when strategy around the decision has such an impact on the outcome

Edited January 15, 2014 by cage

[DC Tom]

I think they should spin a wheel before the play to see how many points the FG would be worth.

 

You get points equal to your opponent's wins.

 

That'll benefit bad teams later in the season. It's parity.

 

AND it'll reduce the risk of injury as teams try to stay out of the end zone and kick late-season 10-point field goals instead.

[Dibs]

I had a little bit of time so I decided to look at a few quick numbers.

 

I thought I'd compare the 1966 season(1st SB year) to the 2013 season(current).

(note: For ease of calculation I counted TDs as a flat 7 points, ignoring missed PAT & 2pt attempts).

 

 

1966:

 

Offensive TDs/team: 33 (231.3 pts/team)

Successful FGs/team: 16.9 (50.8 pts/team)

Total offensive points/game: 282.1

 

FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 18%

 

 

2013:

 

Offensive TDs/team: 37.9 (265.6 pts/team)

Successful FGs/team: 27 (80.9 pts/team)

Total offensive points/game: 346.5

 

FG percentage of Offensive scoring: 23.3%

 

 

 

In 48 years....

Total offensive scoring has increased by 23% (surprising low to me)

Offensive TD scoring has increased by 15% (even more surprising low)

FG scoring has increased by 59%

 

 

Though the percentage of FGs scored has increased dramatically in those 48 years, the percentage of offensive scoring for FGs compared to the overall offensive scoring has only increased by 5.3% over that time.

 

Another way of looking at the numbers would be.....FG scoring has seen a 29.4% increase in relation to the total scoring while TD scoring has seen a 6.5% decrease.

 

 

These numbers have somewhat changed my view on the situation. Though it is clear that FG scoring has increased at a very high rate, the effect of the increase on the overall scoring is only a small amount(5.3%) more than 48 years ago. I tend to think that the situation should still be addressed at some point.....but I no longer think that the increase in FG scoring has a significant effect on the game(when compared to how it was originally intended).

[Playoffs?]

I fully support narrowing and possibly raising the goalposts.